juneau non motorized transportation plan · based on public input; on discussions with city and...

JJUUNNEEAAUU NNOONN‐‐MMOOTTOORRIIZZEEDD

TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN

May 28, 2009 Version

Prepared for:

City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801

Prepared by:

Sheinberg Associates 204 No. Franklin Street, Ste 1

Juneau, Alaska 99801

Acknowledgements Thank you to Juneau’s walkers and cyclists who came to the public meetings and shared their time, knowledge and ideas. This plan would not have been possible without your help. Thanks to the following individuals who shared their insights and expertise.

City and Borough of Juneau Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

City and Borough of Juneau Planning and Zoning Commission

Dixie Hood Marsha Bennett

Ray Howard Maria Gladziszewski (Chair)

James King Sr. Nicole Grewe

Melissa Goldstein Dan Miller

Alyssa Machold Ellsworth (Vice Chair) Frank Rue

Jeff Sloss Michael Satre

James Tipps Karen Taug

Kate Walters Nancy Waterman (Vice Chair)

Jeffrey Wilson (Chair) Dennis Watson

City and Borough of Juneau Assembly Members

Mayor Bruce Botelho Sara Chambers Merrill Sanford

Jonathan Anderson Bob Doll David Stone

Jeff Bush Johan Dybdahl Randy Wanamaker

Staff Contributors Marc Matsil, Director Parks and Recreation Dale Pernula, Director Community Development Ben Lyman, Senior Planner Community Development Heather Marlow, Lands and Resources Manager Other Contributors Juneau Freewheelers Bicycle Club Trail Mix, Inc Juneau Coordinated Transportation Committee Sheinberg Associates Consultant Team Community Planners ‐ Barbara J. Sheinberg, AICP and Zoë Morrison, MCIP, Sheinberg Associates, Juneau GIS (Geographical Information System) Analysis and Mapping ‐ Alaska Map Company, Kenai Transportation Planning ‐ Spring Planning Services, Anchorage

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Sustainable Transportation....................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Purpose and Goals of the Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan............................................... 9 1.4 Types of Non‐Motorized Facilities and Definitions ................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2 – METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................13 2.1 Public Outreach and Engagement .......................................................................................... 13 2.2 Research and Field Survey ...................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Data Analysis and Prioritization of Infrastructure Improvements ......................................... 15 2.4 Formal Public Review.............................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 3 – UNDERSTANDING NON‐MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION......................................................19 3.1 Pedestrians.............................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Bicyclists.................................................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Pedestrian Safety Issues ......................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Bicycle Safety Issues................................................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 4 – DESIGNING A BIKABLE AND WALKABLE COMMUNITY..........................................................23 4.1 Context Sensitive Solutions .................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Complete Streets .................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Traffic Calming Measures ....................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Design of New Neighborhoods and Buildings ........................................................................ 27 CHAPTER 5 – JUNEAU’S NON‐MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND EXISTING SYSTEM......................29 5.1 Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Planning and Policy Context ................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Juneau’s Existing Non‐Motorized Facilities ............................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN STANDARDS...................................................................................................40 6.1 Specific Regulations ................................................................................................................ 40 6.2 Sidewalk Standards ................................................................................................................. 40 6.3 Paved Shoulder Lanes ............................................................................................................. 41 6.4 Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................... 41 6.5 Bike Racks ............................................................................................................................... 43 6.6 Separated Paths ...................................................................................................................... 44 6.7 Safe Crossings and Intersections ............................................................................................ 45 CHAPTER 7 – RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ...........................................................48 7.1 Priority Non‐Motorized Infrastructure Improvements .......................................................... 48 7.2 Safe Crosswalks, Bridges and Intersections............................................................................ 50

7.3 Sidewalk and Streetscape Improvements .............................................................................. 54 7.4 Shoulder Lanes........................................................................................................................ 56 7.5 Bike Facilities........................................................................................................................... 57 7.6 Separated Multi‐Use Pathways .............................................................................................. 58 CHAPTER 8 – RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS.....................................................66 CHAPTER 9 – FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................................76 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................80 AAPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS APPENDIX A – ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ..................................................................................82 APPENDIX B – JUNEAU CODE GOVERNING NON‐MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION ........................................84 APPENDIX C – PUBLIC INPUT FORM .................................................................................................88 APPENDIX D – RECOMMENDED NON‐MOTORIZED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, BY AREA ....................90 APPENDIX E – COMPLETE STREETS CODE EXAMPLE ..............................................................................96 LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS Figure 1 – Existing Facilities – Auke Bay........................................................................................ 35 Figure 2 – Existing Facilities – Mendenhall Valley ........................................................................ 36 Figure 3 – Existing Facilities – Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes........................................................ 37 Figure 4 – Existing Facilities – Downtown and Thane................................................................... 38 Figure 5 – Existing Facilities – Douglas Island ............................................................................... 39 Figure 6 – Recommendations – Auke Bay .................................................................................... 60 Figure 7 – Recommendations – Mendenhall Valley ..................................................................... 61 Figure 8 – Recommendations – Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes .................................................... 62 Figure 9 – Recommendations – Downtown and Thane ............................................................... 63 Figure 10 – Recommendations – Douglas Island.......................................................................... 64 Figure 11 – Cross‐Juneau Bikeway Map ....................................................................................... 65

Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan

Public Hearing/Final Draft May 28 2009 version 1

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY The purpose of the Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan is to promote active transportation by guiding development of a community‐wide bicycle and walking network that can be used by all Juneau residents for all types of trips. To accomplish this, a series of specific non‐motorized infrastructure improvements are recommended, 18 of which are priorities, and 13 policies with implementing actions are identified. Plan goals are to:

1. Use new approaches to street design that focus on working together early in project design to plan and build transportation projects that address the needs of all users: pedestrians, cyclists, public transit riders and motorists.

2. Encourage an increase in bicycling, walking and other active forms of transportation by providing safe, efficient and easy‐to‐use facilities that connect activity centers.

3. Improve Juneau’s non‐motorized transportation network and decrease the number of bicycle and pedestrian related accidents by identifying unsafe conditions, network gaps and deficiencies and making necessary improvements to sidewalks, bike lanes, paved shoulder lanes, separated paths, intersections and crosswalks.

4. Develop a year‐round maintenance program for Juneau’s non‐motorized facilities with a focus on sweeping and snow removal along the cross‐Juneau bikeway and snow removal on sidewalks near schools, transit stops and in busy pedestrian areas.

5. Educate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists so all can use the transportation network safely and efficiently. This will be accomplished in part by improving signage and developing programs that encourage residents to choose active modes of transportation, and through enforcement.

In the last decade communities have been changing their approach towards planning for bicyclists and pedestrians. Rising fuel costs, increasing concern about green house gas emissions and growing awareness of the link between community health and active transportation have changed the way that all transportation is viewed. Planners and engineers now recognize that in addition to recreational use, non‐motorized transportation is a vital component of any sustainable community transportation network. Planning Process and Public Input Four key steps – public outreach and engagement, research and field survey, data analysis, and formal public review – were completed to prepare the 2009 Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan. Five public meetings were held early in the process and attended by nearly 100 people; written comments or completed surveys were submitted by 80 people. The public was asked to identify their walking and biking routes and destinations, specific obstacles along



these routes and ideas about how to improve the overall non‐motorized transportation network. New Trends in Transportation Planning Transportation engineers and planners are using new approaches to counter automobile‐only focused design and to instead plan, design and build transportation projects in a manner that addresses the needs of all users: pedestrians, cyclists, public transit riders and motorists. New trends in street design, including Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets, offer ways to design and build more sustainable transportation networks. The Institute of Transportation Engineers advocates the use of a new method of street design called Context Sensitive Solutions. Context Sensitive Solutions are collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches that include all stakeholders in the street design process. The goal is to develop transportation facilities that fit the physical setting and preserve the scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. Context Sensitive Solutions take a project‐oriented and location‐specific approach to designing streets. This includes shifting the focus solely from the motorist to include consideration of safety, operations, community and aesthetics, natural and built environments and jurisdictional interests. The National Complete Streets Coalition has been working for several years to find solutions to problems with traditional street design. This has led to the idea of Complete Street; streets that are designed to give safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motorists of all ages and abilities are able to move safely along and across a Complete Street. Complete Streets in busy urban areas have features for buses, bicycles and pedestrians as well as for motorists. In more rural areas with less traffic and fewer pedestrians and cyclists a paved shoulder may suffice to complete the street. The Complete Street movement encourages planning for all users across the transportation network. This does not mean that all streets need to be perfect for all modes, but that the transportation network needs to work for all modes. Recommended Improvements to Non‐Motorized Infrastructure Based on public input; on discussions with City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) staff, CBJ Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Assembly; and review of existing plans and analysis of the current conditions, nearly 100 recommendations for specific infrastructure improvements were developed. The criteria used to evaluate and prioritize recommendations are: the potential for pedestrian use, proximity to community destinations, number of accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists that have occurred in the area and the average annual daily traffic counts in the vicinity of the proposed improvement. The result is a list of high, medium and low priority recommendations for improvements to non‐motorized facilities.



The following is a list of the 18 highest priority recommendations Juneau‐wide and for each specific area. The numbers (#xx) below refer to the improvement as it is depicted on Figures 6 through 11 and on Tables 7‐2 through 7‐6. Juneau‐Wide Priorities

• Cross‐Juneau bikeway – Identify gaps, bring all routes up to standards add signs. This focus on a bikeway way will raise the visibility of cycling in Juneau and will encourage residents to take more trips by bicycle.

• Paved shoulder lanes – Add paved shoulder on North Douglas Highway from Boat Launch to the end (#94), Thane Road from downtown to the end (#66), and Glacier Highway from Lena Loop to Tee Harbor (#11) and from Amalga Harbor to end (#13). These routes are part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway and are recreation destinations. The paved shoulder will provide space for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Mendenhall Valley West Priorities

• Sidewalk improvements in University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) and Auke Bay area including complete sidewalk system and crosswalks where needed (#2 and #12). The area includes residential and commercial uses, the UAS and an elementary school and has many pedestrians. Pedestrian improvements will make the area safer and will encourage increased pedestrian use.

• Bike lane along Glacier Highway from Deharts to the Brotherhood Bridge needs to be brought up to standards for width, pavement markings and signs (#3). The paved shoulder in this area is currently variable in width and does not have consistent pavement markings and signs. This route has high traffic volumes and speeds and is part of the cross town bike route.

Mendenhall Valley East Priorities

• Improve five Mendenhall Loop Road intersections for pedestrians (#27, #30, #31, #33 and #34). There are many community destinations, including schools, on both sides of this road. Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists have occurred at each of these intersections and steps need to be taken to make these crossings safer.

• Widen Brotherhood Bridge and add bike lanes and a wider, safer sidewalk. The bridge is currently too narrow and is part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway (#24).

• Improve Mendenhall Mall Road for non‐motorized users by adding crosswalks, bike facilities and sidewalks. This is close to Juneau’s largest population center and near many schools and community destinations. Signage and pavement markings to delineate the road from the parking lot are not adequate particularly in winter (#25).

• Bike lane on Glacier Highway from Brotherhood Bridge to the Mendenhall Loop Road needs to be brought up to standards for width, pavement markings and signs (#26). The paved shoulder in this area is currently variable in width and does not have consistent



pavement markings and signs. This route has high traffic volumes and speeds and is part of the cross town bike route.

• Complete the Under Thunder separated path along the eastern edge of the Mendenhall Valley. This path will provide an off‐road alternative for commuters heading downtown and between neighborhoods in an area with high traffic volumes.

Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes Priorities

• Improve non‐motorized facilities on Glacier Highway in Lemon Creek from Sunny Point intersection to Vanderbilt Hill Road – complete sidewalks on south‐west side of the street and bring bike lane up to standard. The Lemon Creek area is very dangerous because it has a high number of pedestrians and significant commercial and industrial traffic moving at high speeds. Currently the paved bike lane is variable in width and there is only a sidewalk on one side of the street (#45 and #53).

• Add or improve crosswalks along Glacier Highway at Anka Street, Walmart and Concrete Way (#48, #49 and #47). This area has many pedestrians, including children and high traffic volumes and speeds. Crosswalks do not currently exist at Concrete Way or at Walmart. There have been accidents at all three locations.

Downtown and Thane Priorities

• Add a bike lane on Egan Drive from the Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main Street. This is part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway and there is currently no provision for bicycles (#62).

• Improve Egan Drive for pedestrians from the Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main Street by calming traffic and improving or adding crosswalks at Gold Creek/Glacier Avenue (#68), Whittier Street (#69), Willoughby Ave (#75) and Main Street (#74). This area is home to many community destinations and with new development underway that will increase pedestrian use.

• Improve sidewalks, crosswalks and bike lanes on Glacier Avenue between Highland Drive and 12th Street. Focus improvements on safe routes to schools (#63 and #64).

• Seawalk – Connect existing segments to complete route from Aurora Harbor to the Rock Dump. This has been a community priority for many years. Once completed, it will provide benefits for residents and tourists and will relieve congestion on downtown sidewalks (#61).

Douglas Island Priorities

• Complete Douglas Highway bike lane from where it ends now near Gastineau School to the Savikko Road intersection (#84). This is part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway and the bike lane ends abruptly making a dangerous situation.

• Add or improve intersections on Douglas Highway at Cordova Street (#88), Crow Hill Drive (#86), Savikko Road (#89) and Douglas Library (#87). This is the main route through



the area and several accidents involving pedestrians and bicycles have taken place at each intersection.

• Treadwell Ditch – Rebuild trails and bridges along this 17 mile trail transportation and recreation corridor that connects Douglas and the Eaglecrest recreation area (#90). This trail connects several residential areas and will provide an off‐road alternative to Douglas Highway.

Recommended Policies with Implementing Actions In addition to the specific recommended improvements to non‐motorized infrastructure, 13 recommended policies with implementing actions have been developed. Policies (without actions) are listed now. Policy 1. Complete preliminary engineering and cost estimation for highest priority non‐motorized infrastructure improvements. Policy 2. Amend Title 49, the Land Use Code, to ensure that subdivision improvements are required in a context‐sensitive manner. Policy 3. CBJ initiated projects that will build/reconstruct transportation infrastructure or trip destinations (offices, recreational facilities, etc.) will use complete streets and context sensitive solutions approaches prior to beginning project design. A formal pre‐application meeting similar to those held with private permit applicants will be conducted. Policy 4. Work with the Alaska DOT&PF Regional Director to establish a routine process to allow CBJ input at the front‐end of the design stage of Alaska DOT&PF street projects. This will save time and money for both parties and significantly enhance cooperation and communication. Policy 5. Standardize consideration of non‐motorized improvements in subdivision design and review. Policy 6. CBJ Community Development Department should be responsible for non‐motorized transportation planning. Policy 7. Establish a bicycle/pedestrian education and signage program. Policy 8. Commit to a maintenance program for non‐motorized facilities. Policy 9. Actively support safe routes to schools programs. Policy 10. Commit to becoming a bicycle friendly community. Policy 11. Provide more bicycle racks.



Policy 12. Support non‐motorized advocacy. Policy 13. Designate and support a cross‐Juneau bikeway.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 11 –– IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

1.1 Introduction

The goal of the Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan is to make bicycling and walking safe, convenient and pleasant so that residents choose active forms of transportation more often. Over the last fifty years, the rise of the automobile has had a major influence on both behavior and community design. The automobile gave people freedom to live farther from their places of work. Rapid suburban development resulted and the design of neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools, homes and streets was altered to allow cars to move quickly and easily. Walking and bicycling, ideal for short trips, lost their advantage and their place on the road. At the community scale, land uses have became increasingly segregated and destinations farther apart. In neighborhoods, increased traffic moving at higher speeds has led to conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists who once shared the streets. In many cases, the desire to accommodate cars has come at the expense of other modes of transportation. Decreased waking and biking trips, and the associated increase in vehicle trips, has impacted community sustainability by contributing to rising obesity levels, increased traffic congestion, rising transportation costs, increased burning of fossil fuels, and decreased air quality. There is now a growing desire in cities across the country to return to more walkable and bikable streets to support livable communities. This means planning, designing and retrofitting the transportation network to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use by all residents including children, seniors and the disabled. Juneau’s Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan established goals and recommends both specific infrastructure improvements and related actions aimed at developing a complete transportation network and establishes community priorities for non‐motorized projects. This plan replaces the prior plan completed in 1997. It includes recommendations from that plan that are still relevant along with new recommendations to reflect current conditions and priorities for biking and pedestrian routes. This plan also identifies potential funding sources for non‐motorized facilities. Juneau currently has a basic non‐motorized transportation system with many opportunities for improvement. With a strong commitment by City and Borough of Juneau policy makers, staff and residents, Juneau can use the “5 Es” – engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation – to become a more walking and bicycling friendly city.



1.2 Sustainable Transportation

Transportation is about access and mobility. A well‐designed, complete network enables convenient access for residents to housing, work, recreation, shops and other activities. Mixed‐use zoning allows a blend of land uses within the same neighborhood, increasing the viability of walking and cycling trips. Over the last thirty years, conventional development patterns have relied on single‐use zones and low density, sprawling neighborhoods. These segregated areas are difficult to serve with public transit, leading to car dependence. This puts elderly people who no longer drive, people who cannot afford or choose not to own a car, and youth at a disadvantage. Road infrastructure and parking lots are expensive to construct and maintain. As traffic congestion increases, there is increasing pressure to build more roads or widen existing ones. Across North America, cities have increased road capacity, yet find ever increasing traffic congestion. Cities are now looking to sustainable transportation initiatives to help solve these problems. Solutions are often focused on developing a highly interconnected vehicle, transit, bicycle and trail network that increases accessibility and provides the community with transportation choices. Communities are also trying to minimize the average length of vehicle trips through compact growth and integrated land uses. Designing and developing a transportation network that works for all modes has numerous benefits including:

• Increased safety for bicyclists and pedestrians

• Energy and cost savings for individuals and governments due to more fuel efficient modes of travel

• Reduced vehicle miles traveled resulting in reduced emissions, improved traffic flow and decreased vehicle maintenance and repair costs

• Improved public health by increasing physical activity levels and improving air quality

• Increased mobility and choice

• Improved quality of life by fostering the personal interaction that takes place while on foot or on bicycle

There are individual and community benefits to choosing non‐motorized transportation, yet in many places, adequate non‐motorized transportation facilities do not exist. Many communities are working to make their transportation systems more sustainable by improving their non‐motorized transportation networks.



Too often traditional road building projects have focused exclusively on improving the movement of cars by widening lanes, limiting pedestrian and bicycle access to roads and minimizing interference with traffic flow. These improvements are often done without consideration of the movement of pedestrians and cyclists in the area. This design focus on increasing speeds and capacity for cars can lead to streets that divide neighborhoods and are dangerous and unwelcoming for pedestrians and cyclists. Transportation engineers and planners are using new approaches to counter automobile‐only focused design and instead plan, design and build transportation projects in a manner that addresses the needs of all users: pedestrians, cyclists, public transit riders and motorists. New trends in street design, including Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets, offer ways to design and build more sustainable transportation networks.

1.3 Purpose and Goals of the Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan

The purpose of the Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan is to guide the development of a sustainable transportation system with a community‐wide biking and walking network that can be used by all Juneau residents for all types of trips. Specific goals are:

1. Use new approaches to street design that focus on working together early in project design to plan and build transportation projects that address the needs of all users: pedestrians, cyclists, public transit riders and motorists.

2. Encourage an increase in bicycling, walking and other active forms of transportation by providing safe, efficient and easy to use facilities that connect activity centers.

3. Improve Juneau’s non‐motorized transportation network and decrease the number of bicycle and pedestrian related accidents by identifying unsafe conditions, network gaps and deficiencies and making necessary improvements to sidewalks, bike lanes, paved shoulder lanes, separated paths, intersections and crosswalks.

4. Develop a year‐round maintenance program for Juneau’s non‐motorized facilities with a focus on sweeping and snow removal along the cross‐Juneau bikeway and snow removal on sidewalks near schools, transit stops and in busy pedestrian areas.

5. Educate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists so all can use the transportation network safely and efficiently. This will be accomplished in part by improving signage, developing programs that encourage residents to choose active modes of transportation, and through enforcement.



1.4 Types of Non‐Motorized Facilities and Definitions

There are several different types of non‐motorized transportation facilities. Generally, the term bicycle facility implies improvements or facilities intended to accommodate or encourage bicycling. This can include bike lanes, separated paths, bike parking, maps, signs, route markers, street‐crossing amenities and other facilities intended for the use of cyclists. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paved shoulders, crosswalks, signage, separated paths and trails. Different types of facilities will be required in different areas depending on the traffic volume, types of users and existing conditions. This plan focuses on routes that are used by residents to get from one place to another, as opposed to routes that are used for recreation. Definitions for non‐motorized facilities and other terms used in this plan are now provided. Dimensional standards are from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Arterial: A road that is designed to move large volumes of traffic and goods, generally from one part of the community to another to connect major employment and activity centers to residential areas.

Bicycle Box: This is a painted box located at an intersection that allows cyclists to make left turns ahead of vehicles.

Bicycle Lane: Bike lanes are found to the right of the main traffic lane and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor traffic. Bike lanes are at least 5 feet wide and have bike route signs and pavement markings. Bike lanes are similar to a paved shoulder except that they are intended for use by cyclists only and will have signs to indicate this.

Bicycle Route: This is a paved shoulder, bike lane, separated path or shared roadway that is designated as part of the community’s bike route system and has signs and pavement markings.

Collector: A road designed to carry traffic between local streets and arterials or from local street to local street.

Complete Street: Streets designed and operated to enable safe access for all users within the network. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities area are able to move safely along and across a complete street network.

Context Sensitive Design: This is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.

Curb Extension: This is a traffic calming feature that extends the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane, effectively narrowing the street width. It is also know as a bulb‐out.



Local Street: A road designed to provide access to adjacent properties.

Refuge: This is a raised island placed in the centre of the street at intersections or mid‐block to help protect crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles.

Paved Shoulder/Paved Shoulder Lane: This is a striped, paved area to the right of the vehicle travel lane. This is a lane that can be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicles may also be able to stop in this lane temporarily, but parking is not allowed.

Pork Chop Islands: These are small islands that separate the right turn lane from the through traffic lane, provide a refuge for pedestrians and shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians.

Separated Paths: A separated multi‐use pathway is a paved path that is physically separated from the road. Separated paths can are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, skate boarders, runners and in‐line skaters. In some cases, they may be used by cross‐country skiers.

Shared Roadways: These are streets that are shared by both vehicles, cyclists and in some cases pedestrians. Shared roads may have signs to remind motorists to respect other modes of transportation.

Sidewalks: Sidewalks are a paved surface running along a road that is separated from the driving surface by a curb and is designed for pedestrian use. These facilities are not designed for bicycle use and generally should not be considered bicycle facilities.

Trails: A trail is an unpaved corridor that is not accessible to motorized vehicles and often serves multiple uses such as hiking, skiing or bicycling.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 22 –– MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY Four key steps – public outreach and engagement, research and field survey, data analysis, and formal public review – were completed to prepare the 2009 Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan.

2.1 Public Outreach and Engagement

Informing the community about the plan update and seeking their experiences walking and cycling in Juneau was accomplished in four ways:

1. Posting information on the CBJ website, running display ads in the Juneau Empire, being interviewed on local radio shows and running public service announcements on the radio before public meetings.

2. Hosting five public meetings in different locations throughout the community to explain the project, answer questions and encourage people to draw routes they use, wish to use, and desire to be improved as they walk, bike or use other non‐motorized transportation to get around their neighborhoods and the community. Almost 100 residents attended these meetings.

3. Contacting and/or meeting with agencies or stakeholder groups such as the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the Southeast Road Runners, the Freewheelers Bicycle Club, Trail Mix Inc., Nordic Ski Club and the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Committee.

4. Developing a project questionnaire to solicit written, mapped and emailed comments and ideas on walking and biking destinations, missing links, safety concerns and other obstacles along the routes. Approximately 80 individuals submitted almost 400 unique comments on non‐motorized transportation in Juneau. Comments covered a wide range of subjects and scale; from dangerous intersections, to snow removal priorities, to city‐wide policies for promoting non‐motorized transportation. (See Appendix D for a copy of the questionnaire).

2.2 Research and Field Survey

Maps of the existing non‐motorized transportation network needed updating and it was critical to bring current research, practice and trends in active transportation to this project. Research and field work to support plan preparation included:

• Detailed evaluation of the 1997 Plan’s recommendations to determine which were completed.

• Field survey and mapping of Juneau’s bicycle and pedestrian routes to assess the status and condition of the network.

• Obtain and review non‐motorized transportation plans and policy guidance from: o Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions. Anchorage Bicycle Plan, Draft 2008.



o Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions. Anchorage Pedestrian Plan, 2007. o American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the

Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. o Bike Pittsburgh, Inc. (www.bike‐pgh.org) o City and Borough of Sitka. Sitka Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2006. o City of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2007. o City of Homer. Homer Non‐Motorized Transportation and Trail Plan, 2004. o City of Kirkland. Kirkland Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2001. o City of Portland. Portland Bicycle Master Plan, 1998. o City of Maple Valley. Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2004. o City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2007. o Complete Streets Coalition. (www.completestreets.org) o Halifax Regional Municipality. Active Transportation Plan, 2006. o Institute of Transportation Engineers. Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban

Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities. (www.ite.org/css/) o Klop, Jeremy. Complete Streets. The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, 2008. o Laplante, John, P.E. Ptoe and Barbara McCann. Complete Streets; We Can Get There From Here.

ITE Journal, May 2008. o National Center for Safe Routes to Schools. (www.saferoutesinfo.org) o NYC Bike Maps; New York City’s Bike Paths, Bike Lanes and Greenways. (www.nycbikemaps.com) o Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle Manual, 2006. o Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (www.walkinginfo.org) o Sacramento California. Best Practices for Complete Streets, 2005. o USDOT FWA Tuner‐Fairbank Highway Research Centre. (www.tfhrc.gov) o USDOT FWA. National Biking and Walking Study 10 Year Status Report, 2004. o USDOT FWA. Pedestrian Facilities User Guide, 2002. o Walkable Streets. (www.walkablestreets.com)

• Acquire maps of current zoning and current “build‐out” residential density from the CBJ Community Development Department.

• Map community destinations to which providing non‐motorized transportation access is important such as schools, commercial and work centers, parks, trailheads and beach access points.

• Compile guidelines and codes governing design and use of non‐motorized facilities.

• Acquire and map vehicle‐pedestrian or vehicle‐bicycle accident data from the Juneau Police Department (October 1999 – October 2008) and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (2002‐2006).

Accident Data

Between October 1999 and October 2008, there were 101 documented accidents (five fatalities) involving pedestrians and vehicles, and 98 accidents (one fatality) involving bicycles and vehicles (Table 2‐1). (No in‐depth analysis was done to determine the specific causes or possible trends.)



TABLE 2‐1 VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE ACCIDENTS

Intersections with the most accidents Corridors with most accidents

Number of accidents is shown in brackets

Mendenhall Loop Rd and Egan Dr (7) Mendenhall Loop Rd – More than (20 + 1 fatality) Mendenhall Loop Rd and Mendenhall Mall Rd (8) Egan Dr in the Mendenhall Valley (12) Mendenhall Loop Rd and Nancy St (3) Mendenhall Mall Rd (13) Mendenhall Loop Rd and Stephen Richards Dr (13 + 1 fatality)

Glacier Hwy through Lemon Creek (20)

Mendenhall Loop Rd and Mendenhall Blvd (8) Glacier Hwy in the airport/Jordan Creek area (13) Mendenhall Loop Rd and Taku Blvd (3) Glacier Ave through Downtown Juneau (11) Glacier Hwy at Walmart (6 + 1 fatality) Main St (10) Glacier Hwy and Alaway St (4 + 1 fatality) South Franklin St (14) Glacier Hwy and Anka St (4) Douglas Hwy from the Bridge to Downtown Douglas (10) Stephen Richards Dr and Riverside Dr (4) Glacier Hwy Ninth Ave/Tenth Ave (5) Glacier Hwy and Twelfth Ave (3) Egan Dr and Willoughby St (5) Egan Dr and Main St (4) South Franklin St and Front St (6) Main St and Fourth Ave (4) Douglas Hwy at Cordova St (1 + 1 fatality)

Sources: Juneau Police Department (October 1999 – October 2008) and ADOT&PF (2002‐2006).

2.3 Data Analysis and Prioritization of Infrastructure Improvements

Strong interest in establishing non‐motorized improvement priorities exists for two reasons: to set realistic expectations about improvements that can be accomplished given limited funding and to ensure the investment of public resources provides the greatest possible public benefits in the most efficient way. Prioritized infrastructure improvements are presented in Chapter 7, methodology is reviewed here. While there is some variation, most non‐motorized transportation plans use similar types of criteria to analyze possible improvements and identify priorities. The 2009 Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan used four criteria:

• Potential for pedestrian use, as measured by the maximum residential density when the area is built‐out at the allowable zoning density.

• Potential for non‐motorized use, as measured by the number of community destinations within a ¼ or ½ mile radius of the proposed improvement.

• Potential for making non‐motorized facilities safer by improving an area with pedestrian or bicycle and car crash history.

• The amount of traffic in the vicinity of the proposed improvement.



These criteria, which were used to score projects, were designed to recognize improvements in locations that meet the highest community needs. In addition, attention was given to whether a proposed non‐motorized improvement completed a deficiency in an existing route or network, or was recommended in the Juneau Comprehensive Development Plan, Area Wide Transportation Plan, or 1997 Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan. For each criterion, a score between 0 and 3 was assigned. Each criterion is described more detail in Table 2‐2. Following the application of the four scoring criteria, each project had a minimum of zero points and a maximum of 12 points. Projects scoring 9 to 12 points were ranked as high priorities, projects scoring 5 to 8 points were ranked as medium priorities, and projects scoring 0 to 4 four points were ranked as low priorities. For example, a project within ¼ mile of a school and a public park, in an area zoned D‐18, on a route with average annual daily traffic count of 5,000, and at an intersection with four documented pedestrian‐vehicle crashes would score a 12, and thus be recommended as a highest priority improvement project.

TABLE 2‐2 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA 1. Proximity to community destination (schools, shopping areas, recreation destinations including parks, trailheads, beach access points)

• 3 Points – Within a quarter mile of two or more community destinations • 2 Points – Within a quarter mile of one community destination • 1 Points – Within half a mile of at least one community destination

2. Maximum potential residential density • 3 Points – Within a quarter mile of a very high density area (more than 11 housing units per acre) • 2 Points – Within a quarter mile of a high density area (between 6 and 10 housing units per acre) • 1 Points – Within a quarter mile of a medium density area (between 4 and 5 housing units per acre)

3. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count • 3 Points – Recommendation is on a route with a AADT of 4000 or greater • 0 Points – recommendation is on a route with AADT less than 4000.

4. Proximity to Accidents • 3 Points – Recommendation is at a location with three or more accidents • 2 Points – Recommendation is at a location with two accidents • 1 Points – Recommendation is at a location with at least one accident

In addition to infrastructure improvements, a series of recommended policies and implementing actions were developed (see Chapter 8) based on a combination of public comment, discussion with CBJ department staff, and research into non‐motorized policies and strategies used by communities. Policies were refined throughout the public hearing and review process.



2.4 Formal Public Review

The draft 2009 Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan was issued in February 2009. Notice of its availability was provided by email to a project contact list and posted on the CBJ website. It was reviewed in March during work sessions or committee‐of‐the‐whole meetings with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC), the Planning Commission and the CBJ Assembly. These meetings were advertised and open to the community. Public comment on the draft plan was accepted for four weeks. In May 2009 a revised plan was issued for public hearing and approval. Following an opportunity for public comment, the PRAC recommended the Assembly approve the plan and incorporate it into the CBJ Comprehensive Plan at its May 9, 2009 meeting. The Planning Commission took action on the plan at its May 26 meeting, also recommending that the CBJ Assembly approve the plan and adopt it as part of the CBJ Comprehensive Plan. The plan was adopted by ordinance 2009‐ xx, by the CBJ Assembly in July 2009.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33 –– UUNNDDEERRSSTTAANNDDIINNGG NNOONN‐‐MMOOTTOORRIIZZEEDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN

3.1 Pedestrians

People walk places for a range of reasons; traveling to work, bus stops, school, recreation and entertainment, health and exercise, social events and errands. The decision to make a trip on foot is based on travel time, weather, safety and route continuity. People also begin and end every car and transit trip as a pedestrian. People who are walking to a specific destination look for the most direct route with safe crossings. Those who are walking for recreation look for enjoyable and interesting routes. For either type of trip, people choose walking routes that have safe crosswalks, continuous routes, slow traffic speeds, mixed land uses, direction connections to destinations and good urban design.

Pedestrian Friendly Design The pedestrian experience varies greatly depending on the surroundings. When constructing a new street or rebuilding an existing one, walking can be encouraged by considering the walker’s experience. Features such as ample sidewalks, street furniture, crosswalks, curb cuts, pedestrian scale lighting and vegetated buffers between the sidewalk and street make walking safer and more enjoyable. The specific design of pedestrian elements will depend on the type, capacity and location of the street. Arterial, minor arterial, collector and local streets each need to be designed differently to work well for pedestrians. Key design considerations are:

Safe Crossings: Crossings should include crosswalks and signage to alert all. Crossings should be carefully spaced. If they are too far apart, pedestrians will cross without them, making a dangerous situation. Curb extensions and mid‐street refuge areas should be considered on busier streets with adequate right‐of‐way widths. Continuous and Direct Routes: Sidewalks and separated paths should provide for continuous pedestrian movement. Gaps and missing links are dangerous for pedestrians. Wherever possible, direct connections to destinations should be provided to reduce walking distances. Mixed Land Uses: Segregated land use increases the distance between destinations, making walking more difficult. Mixing housing, employment, shopping, schools and recreation will decrease distance between destinations and encourage people to walk. Accessibility: Pedestrian facilities should be designed to be usable by all. Standard sidewalk widths, proper curb cuts, the absence of obstacles and good maintenance will



mean that seniors, people with disabilities and others with impaired mobility are all accommodated. Traffic Separation: On streets with high traffic speeds, sidewalks should be separated by a vegetated buffer to provide increased safety, a more pleasant walking experience and space for snow storage. Interesting Places: The pedestrian environment can be greatly improved with the addition of street furniture, trees and landscaping, human scale lighting, awnings and overhangs, public art and other amenities. The pedestrian experience is also improved where buildings rather than parking lots are closer to the street.

3.2 Bicyclists

The needs of cyclists are somewhat different from the needs of pedestrians. Bicyclists heading to school or work are looking for safe and direct routes. Recreational cyclists are looking for safe routes that have interesting scenery or destinations. Cyclists will use separated paths or, more often, will ride on the road either on a designated bike lane or on the right hand side of a shared road.

Types of Bicyclists There are three types of bicyclists: advanced, basic and children. Because the skills, confidence and preferences of users can vary, it is important to consider all types when designing a non‐motorized transportation system. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities uses the following classification system.

Advanced: Advanced riders are those who use their bicycle much the same way as they use a car. Convenience, speed and direct access to a destination with minimum detour or delay are main priorities. They are generally comfortable riding with traffic, but need to have sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder.

Basic: Basic or less confident adult riders may also use their bicycles for transportation purposes but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample road width. Basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets.

Children: Children on their own or with adults may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key community destinations and make up a major part of the non‐motorized transportation use in Juneau. They often travel between neighborhoods, schools, parks, stores and recreation facilities. Residential streets with low traffic volume and speeds, linked to designated bike lanes along arterial



streets and separated paths can safely accommodate children without encouraging them to travel in heavy traffic.

A single type of facility will not be able to accommodate all user types. A system of interconnected and continuous facilities is needed so that the advanced rider can ride on the road, while shoulder lanes and separated paths provide options for basic riders and children. Within any given corridor, bicyclists should be provided with a range of options.

3.3 Pedestrian Safety Issues

Accidents involving pedestrians result in injuries that tend to be more serious than in other types of accidents. According to the Federal Highway Administration, approximately 40 percent of accidents involving pedestrians occur at an intersection and 75 percent of accidents occur where there are no traffic controls. Traffic speed is a significant factor in the outcome of a pedestrian accident. If a car traveling 20 mph hits a pedestrian, there is an 85 percent survivability rate. If a car traveling at 40 mph hits a pedestrian, there is only a 15 percent survivability rate. There are many ways to create a safer environment for pedestrians. Typically safety related improvements involve additional sidewalks and crosswalks, enforcing existing traffic rules, education programs for motorists and pedestrians and altering the design and engineering of roadways. The Institution of Transportation Engineers lists a number of suggestions for altering the design of pedestrian crossings. Appropriate solutions will vary depending on the particular conditions at each intersection.

3.4 Bicycle Safety Issues

A somewhat contested question about bicycle safety is whether cyclists are safest within the road right‐of‐way (a bike lane or a shared road) or if they are better off on a separated path beside the road. While it may seem that cyclists would be safer on a separated path, the opposite may actually be true for adult cyclists. This is because cyclists on a separated path will be traveling at a high speed in an area where drivers of turning vehicles crossing separated paths are not looking for them. By contrast, when cyclists are riding on the road, they have the right‐of‐way and vehicles entering the road legally have to yield. When cyclists are traveling on a separated path or sidewalk they must yield to both pedestrians and traffic on cross streets. The decision about which type of bicycle facility is the best depends on local conditions and the anticipated type of rider. Another important aspect of designing safe bicycle facilities is consistency. All road users should have clear and consistent expectations of how other users will behave. Facilities that are designed to provide consistent routes (either on or off the road) will mean that bicyclist behavior will be more predictable to motorists. Intersections where cyclists are merging onto



the roadway from a shared path tend to be dangerous. For this reason, it is best to minimize these transition points. There are potential safety concerns associated with bike lanes. There are also several potential problems at intersections (see illustration on right). Lastly, there are problems when cyclists must cross lanes of traffic to make a left turn. In areas where there are lots of parked cars, even bike lanes that meet the standards may not be wide enough for cyclists to avoid getting hit by a car door.

Bicycle Laws and Enforcement in Juneau Bicycles are legally classified in the State of Alaska as vehicles. There are both State Statutes and provision in the City and Borough of Juneau Municipal Code that apply to bicyclists. Bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on all roads in Juneau with the exception of Egan Expressway from Mendenhall Loop Road to 10th Street downtown. They are required to follow the rules of the road, whenever applicable. In addition to motor vehicle laws, there are bicycle laws that cyclists must follow. Bicycles must be equipped with a headlight, functional breaks and a red rear reflector. People under 18 must wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. A bicycle may not be ridden on a sidewalk in a business district. A business district is defined as an area where there buildings for commercial or industrial purposes for more than 600 feet of street frontage). Bicyclists are to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. Bicyclists should use the shoulder of the roadway when it is maintained in good condition. If a bicyclist is riding on a trail, path or sidewalk they must use care to avoid collisions and yield to pedestrians. Relevant Alaska State Statutes are in Appendix A and the relevant Juneau Municipal Code is found in Appendix B. Motorists and bicyclists are sometimes unclear about what rules bicyclists must follow. Several Juneau cyclists have experienced being yelled at or honked by motorists who do not realize that cyclists are allowed to share the road. Sometime though, cyclists do not follow vehicle laws while riding. A common example of this is when bicyclists run stop signs and traffic signals or ride against traffic. This failure to follow laws causes confusion and can lead to conflict between motorists and cyclists. Enforcement of bicycle laws in Juneau is sporadic and enforcing the rules may lead to safer conditions for both cyclists and motorists.

Intersection Hazards for Cyclists Riding in Bike Lanes ‐ 1, 2 and3 are each potential conflicts between cyclists and motorists (Source: Oregon Bicycle Manual)



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 44 –– DDEESSIIGGNNIINNGG AA BBIIKKAABBLLEE AANNDD WWAALLKKAABBLLEE CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY Traditional road building has often been focused on providing improved movement for motorists by widening lanes and limiting non‐motorized access. In the past, these road upgrades have often made the movement of pedestrians and cyclists more difficult and dangerous (see photos below). There are many ways to improve the design of roads to make conditions safer for walkers and cyclists.

4.1 Context Sensitive Solutions

The Institute of Transportation Engineers has developed a new method of street design called Context Sensitive Solutions. Context Sensitive Solutions involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that includes all stakeholders in the street design process. The goal is to develop transportation facilities that fit the physical setting and preserve the scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. Context Sensitive Solutions take a project‐oriented and location‐specific approach to designing streets. This includes shifting the focus solely from the motorist to include consideration of safety, operations, community and aesthetics, natural and built environments and jurisdictional interests. There are several important differences between conventional street design and Context Sensitive Design. Conventional road design was carried out with the goal of meeting certain traffic demand and intersection level of service objectives. Traditionally, these two elements would dictate the number of lanes and classification of the proposed road. This pre‐determined outcome of the design process can be a source of conflict with stakeholders and can result in a project that does not work for all users and is incompatible with the surroundings. A Context Sensitive approach begins by identifying the critical factors and communicating with stakeholders before establishing design criteria. This process results in a road design that balances level of service needs with environmental, historic preservation or economic development objectives.

Examples of Streets Poorly Designed for Non‐Motorized Modes(Source: Ken Voigt, Ayres Associates)

No Space for Bicycles No Sidewalks on a School Route



Context Sensitive Design is not intended to replace policies, guides and standards that are commonly used. Instead, this approach is intended to illustrate how the flexibility inherent in the guidelines can be applied to make road projects more compatible with community goals (see photos below).

4.2 Complete Streets

The National Complete Streets Coalition has been working for several years to find solutions to the problems with traditional street design. The Coalition has developed the idea of Complete Street; these are streets that are designed to give safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motorists of all ages and abilities are able to move safely along and across a Complete Streets. Complete Streets in busy urban areas have features for buses, bicycles and pedestrians as well as for motorists. In a more rural area with less traffic and few pedestrians and cyclists, a paved shoulder may suffice. The Coalition has been working to promote changes to policies and design at the federal, state and local levels. Complete Streets policies have been adopted by both communities and states across the country. Implementation of these new policies can be a challenge and requires updating plans and procedures, collecting new types of data and training staff. The Complete Street movement encourages planning for all users across the transportation network. This does not mean that all streets need to be perfect for all modes, but that the transportation network needs to work for all modes. Rather then requiring a sidewalk on both sides of each street, a Complete Streets policy will focus on a pedestrian network that is complete and accessible, allowing pedestrians to reach all destinations safely. Each Complete Street project is unique because the best multi‐modal solution will depend on local conditions (see photo next page).

Two Examples of Context Sensitive Arterial Street Design(Source: Right ‐ Institute of Transportation Engineers and left – Ken Voigt, Ayres Associates )



Road Diet(Source: www.saferoutesinfo.org)

4.3 Traffic Calming Measures

As travel speed is a major contributor to pedestrian and bicyclist injury, traffic calming is often considered as an element of non‐motorized transportation planning. Any vehicle traveling more than 30 mph poses a threat to both cyclists and pedestrians. This does not necessarily mean that in order to increase walkability, motor vehicle speed needs to be decreased. More important is total travel time, meaning a trip at lower speeds with fewer stops can be just as efficient as a trip at higher speeds with more stops. It is difficult to alter an existing arterial to make it more usable for walkers and cyclists. In addition to timing traffic signals for a maximum 30 mph speed, there are several methods suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to make existing arterials safer for non‐motorized users. These include: • Narrower travel lanes – 11 foot

lanes are adequate for traffic speeds of 45 mph or less.

• Road diets – changing a four lane into a three lane with bike lanes and a center left turning lane (see photos on right and on next page).

• Elimination of any free flow right hand turn lanes – this includes freeway entry or exit ramps as encouraging freeway speeds on arterial streets is dangerous.

An Example of a Complete Street(Source: Ken Voigt, Ayres Associates)



Road Diet ‐ This arterial in Whitehorse Yukon was put on a "road diet". This former four‐lane arterial road was modified to implement a “complete street.” It now has two driving lanes, a center turning lane, bike lanes, curb extensions and a vegetated buffer to improve it for non‐motorized users. (Source: City of Whitehorse)

• Median and parkway landscaping – appropriate low maintenance landscaping visually narrows the roadway (see photos below).

• Curb parking – retaining curb parking provides for community access and creates a traffic calming effect.

• Engineering changes including tightening corner curb radii, raised medians, and curb extensions can also provide traffic calming.

Median and Parkway Landscaping – Photo to the right shows a poorly designed sidewalk and the photo on the left show a well designed sidewalk with buffer (Source: Federal Highway Administration)



4.4 Design of New Neighborhoods and Buildings

Facilities for non‐motorized transportation should be included in the design for new neighborhoods, streets and buildings. In projects that involve upgrades and reconstruction, improvements should be made to bring non‐motorized facilities up to current AASHTO standards.

Design of New Neighborhoods When new neighborhoods or subdivisions are planned non‐motorized transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists should be included and connect to the existing non‐motorized network. In new development areas (for example, on west Douglas Island) public access easement and rights‐of‐way for non‐motorized transportation should be acquired and developed at the same time as the rest of the transportation system. This will minimize potential conflict over where non‐motorized facilities should be located, and avoid issues with future homeowners who did not know a trail was planned for an area near their dwelling. New neighborhoods should have a highly connected street network. Cul‐de‐sacs are generally discouraged, but if they are necessary, bicycle and pedestrian connections should be provided to connect the ends of the cul‐de‐sacs. In general, mixed‐use and higher density development should be encouraged in order to reduce travel distances. Shorter distances between destinations will make non‐motorized transportation more viable.

Design of New Mixed‐Use or Commercial Development Design of new commercial, mixed‐use and multi‐family residential development often does not include proper non‐motorized facilities. Buildings should be set as close to the lot lines as possible to make a more interesting streetscape and will provide easier access to pedestrians. In parking lots safe, direct and clearly marked walkways should be provided to the building entrance. Where it crosses driving lanes, the walkway should be constructed of a different material (paving stones) and there should be crosswalk signs. Situations where pedestrians must walk behind rows of parked cars should be avoided. Landscaping within parking lots can help to define pedestrian routes, driving areas and parking areas.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 55 –– JJUUNNEEAAUU’’SS NNOONN‐‐MMOOTTOORRIIZZEEDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN PPOOLLIICCIIEESS AANNDD EEXXIISSTTIINNGG SSYYSSTTEEMM

5.1 Setting

Juneau, the Alaska state capital, has a population of 30,300 with nearly one million tourists visiting each year. It has a mild maritime climate where the amount of rain varies by location; downtown receiving the highest rainfall with 80 inches per year and the Mendenhall Valley with 50 inches annually. The average summer temperature range is from 44° to 65° F. The average winter temperature range is from 22° to 35° F with lows not much below zero and occasional warm periods in the forties. High levels of rain and snow can be a deterrent to non‐motorized transportation. There are several residential areas in Juneau. These areas are spread out and many people live in one area and work in another. Areas include the Mendenhall Valley (population 17,000), Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes area (population 5,000), Downtown (population 4,000) and Douglas Island (population 5,000). Juneau’s streets and neighborhoods are developed along the shore and the valleys between the mountains, Mendenhall Glacier and the Gastineau Channel. As a result, Juneau has a fairly linear layout which has both benefits and drawbacks to non‐motorized transportation. The lack of compact densities means that distances are further between neighborhoods and work areas. However, because of the limited number of possible routes, many of the developed areas of Juneau can be interconnected with a small number of facilities. Juneau’s population is active and many people are interesting in non‐motorized transportation. According to the 2000 census, 60% of Downtown and Thane residents walk to work. This high proportion of walkers indicates that residents are interested in non‐motorized modes of transportation and that improving conditions may result in even higher numbers of walkers and cyclists. In general, the existing planning documents are in support of providing non‐motorized transportation in Juneau. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Area‐Wide Transportation Plan contain overall goals related to developing non‐motorized facilities area‐wide and at specific locations where pedestrians and cyclists currently have difficulties.

5.2 Planning and Policy Context

The 2001 Area Wide Transportation Plan and 2008 CBJ Comprehensive Plan are the primary documents that establish transportation policy, guidelines and actions for Juneau. These plans call for area wide and neighborhood specific non‐motorized facilities. The 2009 Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan is guided by this direction, analyzes non‐motorized



improvements in more depth, recommends a variety of prioritized improvements to Juneau’s transportation network, and identifies funding options.

Area Wide Transportation Plan – 2001 The 2001 Juneau Area Wide Transportation Plan (AWTP) defines the framework for transportation projects in Juneau for the next 20 years. The AWTP’s six top priority transportation improvements (as paraphrased in the CBJ 2008 Comprehensive Plan) are:

1. Establish and implement Transportation Demand Management Policies throughout the CBJ focusing on reducing single‐occupant‐vehicle trips and promoting alternative modes of travel.

2. Increase frequency of transit service throughout the urban and suburban areas with express bus service provided from Auke Bay to Downtown Juneau with a link to Downtown Douglas.

3. Focus on local street connections between subdivisions to maximize connectivity for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle use and improve connections from neighborhoods to a regional, interconnected and area‐wide non‐motorized trail system.

4. Establish and maintain bicycle lanes, pathways, sidewalks and bus stops where they are needed. Maintain bicycle lanes, pathways, sidewalks and bus stops with regular restriping, re‐surfacing, street sweeping and snow removal.

5. Work with Alaska Department of Transportation/Public Facilities to implement the Safe Routes to School Program.

6. Seek Federal funds for local transportation needs such as trails, pedestrian safety facilities, bike lanes, scenic enhancements and local transit improvements as well as roads and other vehicle transport‐and parking‐related improvements.

The AWTP includes recommended solutions for both area wide and neighborhood transportation problems. The CBJ Comprehensive Plan supports the implementation of AWTP recommendations; the coordination between these two plans will make implementation of recommendations easier. The AWTP non‐motorized transportation recommendations include maintaining non‐motorized facilities; enhancing routes to schools; including walking and biking facilities as appropriate on all road construction and reconstruction; and installing bike racks and constructing off‐street pathways to connect neighborhoods and activity centers whenever possible. There are also recommendations aimed at solving specific localized transportation problems and many of these have a non‐motorized component.



Juneau Comprehensive Plan – 2008 The Comprehensive Plan guides residents and local officials as they decide the location, intensity and timing of future public and private development and conservation measures. The Plan chapter on transportation sets direction on the local transportation system, including vehicle transport, non‐motorized means of transportation, transit policy and sub‐area transportation needs. The Comprehensive Plan includes a section on Non‐Motorized Transportation that reinforces the importance of non‐motorized transportation and the role it can have in reducing traffic congestion. Encouraging non‐motorized transportation is especially important in areas such as Douglas Island and the Mendenhall Valley where many intersections are at capacity, limiting residential development. Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.2 sets out the specific position of the CBJ on non‐motorized transportation.

CBJ POLICY 8.2 – It is the policy of the CBJ to promote and facilitate transportation alternatives to private vehicles as a means of reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and the consumption of fossil fuels, and to provide safe and healthy means of transportation to all people.

Development Guidelines for Policy 8.2

1. Require sidewalks and bicycle paths or lanes along newly constructed arterial and collector streets where appropriate, and provide or work with Alaska DOT&PF to provide such amenities along existing roads to provide safe and efficient access and recreation and to reduce pedestrian/automobile conflicts.

2. Provide sidewalks and bicycle paths in and around the expanded campus of the University of Alaska Southeast, particularly in conjunction with the construction of student housing in the Auke Bay area.

3. Require sidewalks and bicycle paths along roadways where higher‐density housing is to be provided as a condition of a rezoning application for higher densities.

4. Provide secure, weatherproof bike parking and storage facilities at public buildings and in private developments, particularly developments located along transit corridors.

5. Require that cul‐de‐sacs and other dead‐end streets be connected to neighboring dead‐end streets and through‐streets with pedestrian and bicycle paths wherever practical in new developments in order to create non‐motorized transportation networks for neighborhood residents.



Implementation Actions for Policy 8.2

1. Complete and/or upgrade a continuous separated bicycle/pedestrian pathway between the Mendenhall Valley and downtown Juneau by connecting those portions now existing.

2. Work with the Alaska DOT&PF to construct sidewalks and/or separated paths, or where these are not practical, a wide shoulder of at least 36” along roads that lack such improvements, with a priority given to those corridors which have Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 4,000 vehicles or more. According to ADOT&PF 2005 data, these corridors are:

o Glacier Highway – Vintage Boulevard to Fritz Cove Road – 11,000 AADT

o Glacier Highway – Auke Bay to Ferry Terminal – 6,000 AADT

o North Douglas Highway – Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Eagle Creek – 4,200 AADT

o Industrial Boulevard – 4,100 AADT

Although it did not meet the criteria of AADT of 4,000 or more vehicles and no sidewalks in 2005, the Lemon Creek portion of Glacier Highway (Lemon Drive) had an AADT of between 4,500 and 12,000 (depending on road segment) and insufficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities; accordingly, this corridor should also be given priority in constructing additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

3. Implement the pedestrian and non‐motorized improvements called for in the Area Wide Transportation Plan as funding becomes available. Where there is a public need for those improvements in the immediate future, actively pursue the funding needed to complete those improvements.

4. Work with the Juneau School District and other agencies to identify opportunities for improved pedestrian and bicycle access to schools.

The CBJ Comprehensive Plan also sets out transportation needs for specific areas of Juneau. Non‐motorized transportation policies in these sections are aimed at solving specific problems. This includes identifying gaps where separated paths or sidewalks are needed and specifying that non‐motorized facilities should be included in upgrades to the road system.

Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan This plan is one of a series of regional, multi‐modal transportation plans that are components of the Alaska Statewide Transportation Plan. This plan identifies area needs, provides general guidance on transportation development, and recommends specific transportation improvements for Southeast Alaska. The existing Plan was adopted in 2004 and is currently being updated. This plan makes recommendations aimed at improving the water and road connections between communities in Southeast.



5.3 Juneau’s Existing Non‐Motorized Facilities

Non‐motorized facilities vary across the community. Most streets have sidewalks along at least one side. Juneau has 35 miles of bike lanes and 15.5 miles of separated paths used by bicyclists and pedestrians for recreation and commuting. Figures 1 through 5 depict Juneau’s bike lanes and separated paths. Since the former NMTP was issued the following improvements have been made to Juneau’s non‐motorized system:

• Sections of the Seawalk have been completed between the Rock Dump and the Juneau‐Douglas Bridge.

• Glacier Highway between Tee Harbor and Amalga Harbor has a new paved shoulder.

• A pedestrian bridge was installed across the Mendenhall River at Dimond Park connecting to the Kaxdigoowu Heen Dei trail.

• A roundabout at the west side of the Douglas Bridge was installed improving pedestrian and bicycle movement through the intersection.

• All Capital City transit buses now have front‐mounted bicycle racks for transporting bikes. All buses purchased in the future will also have these bicycle racks.

• Bike lanes were added to the Auke Recreation Bypass Road and to the northern portion of Glacier Highway in the Auke Recreation area.

• Bike Lanes were added to Glacier Highway through the Jordan Creek/airport area between Mendenhall Loop Road and the McNugget Intersection.

• On Glacier Highway at the intersection with Anka Street (Costco turn) the bike lane was more clearly delineated and markings painted to show proper vehicle and bicycle movement, and “pork chops” were added to the intersection.

• Flags for pedestrian use were installed on Glacier Highway at the Alaway Avenue intersection near Dzantiki’‐Heeni Middle School.

• Bike lanes were added along Tongass Boulevard and Nancy Street in the Mendenhall Valley.

• The separated paths along both sides of the Mendenhall Loop Road were resurfaced and new bridges installed over Jordan and Duck Creeks.

• A separated path was installed along Montana Creek Road between Back Loop Road and Skaters Cabin Road.

• Sidewalks were widened, curb bulbs added, and ADA accessibility improved in downtown along the waterfront, Front Street, Seward Street to the Capitol (awnings for rain protection also installed here) and along 4th Street in front of the Capitol.

• Wayfinding signage was designed and installed throughout downtown.



Poor Maintenance: Lack of Snow Removal

Unpaved Shoulder on Glacier Highway near

No Sidewalks

Deficiencies in Juneau’s Non‐Motorized Transportation System There are still many areas where Juneau’s Non‐Motorized facilities need to be improved. The following is a list of the general types of deficiencies that exist in Juneau’s non‐motorized transportation system. • There are gaps in the cross‐Juneau biking network where the

facilities are substandard and dangerous. Specificially, Glacier Highway through Lemon Creek, Glacier Highway between UAS and Mendenhall Loop Road, Glacier Highway and Egan Drive downtown, Willoughby Avenue and Douglas Highway through downtown Douglas should all be brought up to the meet AASHTO standards for bike lanes.

• Separated paths and bike lanes are not properly maintained for year‐round use (see photo on right).

• Routes to schools and sidewalks in school zones can be made safer. This involves identifying main walking routes and adding wider sidewalks, pedestrian activated crosswalks and signage along these routes. This should be accompanied by school based encouragement and education programs.

• Roads in rural areas often do not have paved shoulders, sidewalks or separated paths and are dangerous for pedestrians. Thane Road, North Douglas Highway from the boat launch to the end of the road and Glacier Highway from Lena Point to Tee Harbor and from Amalga Harbor to the end of the road are currently dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists (see photo on right).

• There is no map or guide that shows existing facilities for non‐motorized transportation.

• Many destinations do not have bicycle parking facilities and those that exist are often poorly located, unmaintained or of substandard design.

• The sidewalk system is nonexistent or incomplete. Glacier Highway through Lemon Creek, Glacier Highway in the Auke Bay area, Mendenhall Mall Road, Douglas Highway, Anka Street, North Douglas Highway and Egan Drive in the downtown area currently have substandard or incomplete sidewalk systems (see photo on right).



Example of Sidewalk with Curb Cuts and Ramp (Source: Federal Highway

Administration Safety – Photo Dan Burden)

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 66 –– DDEESSIIGGNN SSTTAANNDDAARRDDSS

6.1 Specific Regulations

There are several sets of standards that apply to the design and development of non‐motorized facilities. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities gives design specifications including dimensions for the design of bicycle facilities including shared roadways, bike lanes, shared use paths, bicycle parking and pavement markings. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices sets out standards for school zone signage, bicycle facility signage and pedestrian crossing signs. The FWHA also sets out specific regulations for pedestrian facilities in the Pedestrian Facilities User Guide, 2002. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires local governments to make their activities, programs and services accessible to people with disabilities. This means that accessible design standards should be used for new and reconstructed sidewalks, crosswalks and separated paths. Priorities for improving accessibility are standardized curb cut ramps, connecting gaps in the sidewalks, ensuring that sidewalks do not end abruptly and ensuring access to transit. Snow removal and providing safe access during construction are also important.

6.2 Sidewalk Standards

Sidewalks should be a minimum of 5 feet wide and meet the requirements of the American Disabilities Association for providing barrier free access. Curb cuts or ramps should be installed at all intersections and at mid block locations where there are crosswalks (see photo below). Ramps should have a slope of no more than 1:12 and tactile warning should be used to mark transitions for pedestrians with visual impairment. Sidewalks should be continuous, not end abruptly and extend to the main entrances of public buildings. In commercial or mixed‐use areas and near schools there should be sidewalks 8 to 10 feet wide on both sides of the street (USDOT FWHA Pedestrian Facilities User Guide, March 2002). On streets with higher traffic volumes and speeds, a vegetated buffer 4 to 6 feet wide will make the sidewalk safer and more pleasant for walkers. Snow that is cleared from the street and sidewalk can be stored in this buffer area. Other streetscape improvements such as adding street trees, pedestrian scale lighting,



Example of Paved Shoulder (Source: Federal Highway Administration Safety)

Cross section Example of a Shoulder Lane (Source: JNMTP 1997)

Example of Pavement Markings (Source: AASHTO)

landscaping and furniture will make walking more enjoyable and may encourage people to take more trips on foot.

6.3 Paved Shoulder Lanes

Paved shoulder lanes are found to the right of the main driving lane and are delineated by a white line at least 6 inches wide. Paved shoulder lanes differ from bike lanes in that they are not designed for exclusive use by bicycles. They are often used in rural areas to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle traffic (see photo on right). They have no pavement markings other than the roadway striping. They may have a Share the Road sign (“sharrow”) or, where they are part of the community bike route system, they should have appropriate bike route signage. The added space provided by paved shoulders increases safety for all users of the road. Another benefit of paved shoulders is that they reduce deterioration at the edge of the road surface and thus can also extend the service life of the road surface. A paved shoulder should be a minimum of 4 feet wide. On roads where there is a curb or other roadside barrier, 5 feet is required (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities). Where there are lots of parked cars, high traffic volumes or speeds or steep grades the paved shoulder should be at least 6 feet wide (see illustration on right).

6.4 Bike Lanes

Bike lanes are located to the right of the main traffic lane and are designed to carry bike traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor traffic. A bike lane should be 6 feet wide and be delineated using a 6 inch solid white line and painted with the standard bicycle paving symbols and directional arrows (see illustration on right). In areas where the bike lane is adjacent to a curb face or guardrail, where there is a steep grade or lots of traffic, bike lanes may need to be wider than 6 feet. If there



At left: Example of Green Bike Lane (Source: www.nycbikemaps.com)

Above: Example of a “Sharrow”(From City of Vancouver, Canada)

Cross section of a Bike Lane (Source: JNMTP 1997)

are physical width limitations, or if there is no curb, a minimum of 4 feet may be acceptable (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities). In areas with on‐street parking, a second 6 inch solid white line should be painted between the parked cars and the bike lane (see cross section on right). Regular pavement maintenance, sweeping and snow removal is critical to not only encourage use but prevent accidents. Drainage grates should be bicycle safe with grates set perpendicular rather than parallel to the direction of travel. On high traffic streets, the entire bike lane can be painted either blue or green to make it more visible (see photo on below left). Bike lanes should be designed to provide the safest and most direct route across town, between neighborhoods and to schools. On routes where bicycles will be traveling but where the road is too narrow to include a bike lane 6 feet wide, share‐the‐road (“sharrow”) signs or markings may be used. This is not a preferred option, but may be required to connect bike lanes on well traveled routes (see photo below right).



Examples of Good Bike Racks (Source: FHWA Safety)

6.5 Bike Racks

Bike racks should be installed in a convenient and visible location as close to the building’s front entrance as possible. Bike racks should be designed to allow the bicycle frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack using a U‐type lock (see illustrations on right). CBJ has installed several “Cora W Series” bike racks and are pleased with the results. According to AASHTO bicycle racks should:

• Not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts.

• Accommodate high‐security U‐shaped bike locks.

• Accommodate locks securing the frame and both wheels (preferably without removing the front wheel from the bicycle).

• Not impede or interfere with pedestrian traffic.

• Be easily accessed from the street and protected from cars.

• Be visible to passersby to promote usage and enhance security.

• Be covered where users will leave their bikes for a long time.

• Have as few moving parts as possible.

• Accommodate a wide range of bicycle shapes and sizes.

• Be simple to operate.

• Bike racks must be spaced to provide easy access.

Diagram Showing Spacing for Bicycle Parking (Source: FWA Safety)



Separated Multi‐Use Path (Source: Safe Routes to Schools)

Bike Racks at a Floyd Dryden School(Source: Nathan Coffee)

Many communities now have ordinances related to bicycle parking. These ordinances will typically set out design guidelines, number and location of the bike racks. The number of bike parking spaces required can either be set as a function of the type of development or as a standard percent of the required off‐street automobile parking. For example, in Ann Arbor the City Ordinance requires 5 bike parking spaces per classroom for elementary schools (see photo on right) and one bike parking spot per 10 units in a multi‐family residential development.

6.6 Separated Paths

A separated multi‐use pathway is a facility that is physically separated from the road (see photo on right). The pathway may be within the road right‐of‐way or may be completely separate. The pathway can be separated from the road by either an open space or a physical barrier. Users can include bicyclists, in‐line skaters, wheelchair users and pedestrians including walkers, runners and people with baby strollers and dogs. A separated path can provide bicyclists and other users with a shortcut through a residential neighborhood, an enjoyable ride in a park or along a shoreline. Separated paths need to be located where there are minimal driveway crossings or road intersections. Traffic intersecting a separated pathway can be very dangerous as cyclists will be crossing streets in an area where the motorist does not expect them. Separated paths should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and should be separated from any adjacent road surface by at least 5 feet (see cross section next page). Intersections where a separated path meets the road are especially dangerous and should be designed carefully; in these situations installing signage warning both non‐motorized users and cyclists is important.



“Pork Chop” Island

6.7 Safe Crossings and Intersections

Safe road crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians are very important for non‐motorized transportation. Twelve types of alterations or crossing treatments that increase safety at intersections are described below. These are not design standards, but are options for the design of new intersections or the modification of existing intersections that will make them safer for non‐motorized users.

• Adding corner “pork chop” islands to shorten crossing distance at intersections (see illustration on right).

• Narrower vehicle travel lanes to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and slow traffic.

• Additional street lights to increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. • Tighter corner curb radii to slow turning traffic, shorten pedestrian crossing distances and

provide space for perpendicular curb ramps (see illustration next page).

Cross section of a Separated Path (Source: AASHTO)



Raised Median Creating a Refuge Island (Source: Federal Highway Administration)

Curb Extension (Source: Federal Highway Administration)

Reduced Curb RadiiImage on left allows car to turn at higher speeds. The sidewalk on the illustration to the right has been modified by reducing the curb radius to slow down turning speed and increase pedestrian safety. (Source: www.bicyclinginfo.org)

• Raised medians to provide pedestrian refuge and allow pedestrian to cross half the street at a time (see photo on right).

• Signs warning motorists of the presence of pedestrians.

• Pedestrian activated crosswalk warning signs on streets with many pedestrians and heavier traffic flow where there are currently no traffic lights.

• Full traffic lights with pedestrian signals at intersections that currently have no signals.

• Countdown clocks telling pedestrians how long they have to cross the street at signalized intersections.

• Curb extensions to shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve sight lines and provide space for curb ramps (see photo to right).



Roundabout (Source: Federal Highway Administration)

Continental Crosswalks (Source: Federal Highway Administration)

• Crosswalks that are easy to see and last a long time. Continental or ladder style crosswalks are marked with thick white lines perpendicular to the direction of travel, are easy to see and long lasting (see illustration to right).

• Roundabouts where a large circular, raised island

located at an intersection takes the place of a traffic signal and traffic entering the circle yields to traffic already in the roundabout (see photo below).



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 77 –– RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDEEDD IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTTSS The overall goal of Juneau’s Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan is to foster a more sustainable transportation system by developing a community‐wide biking and walking network that can be used by all residents for all types of trips. This chapter presents the following:

7.1 – The highest priority infrastructure improvements 7.2 – Crosswalks, bridges and intersection improvements 7.3 – Sidewalk and streetscape improvements 7.4 – Shoulder lane improvements 7.5 – Bicycle facility improvements 7.6 – Separated path improvements

The location of each recommended infrastructure improvement is shown on the maps in Figures 6 through 11 and has a unique identification number. The recommendation numbers shown in the following tables can be used to locate the project on the map. Note that not all neighborhood trails that connect cul‐de‐sacs and serve other non‐motorized purposes that have been approved by the Planning Commission are captured on the maps. A list of the recommended improvement projects by area can be found in Appendix D.

7.1 Priority Non‐Motorized Infrastructure Improvements

Table 7‐1 lists the 18 Highest Priority infrastructure improvements for Juneau. (Additional high priority recommendations exist, but those on Table 7‐1 are the top priorities.) Each is briefly described and the reason for its listing cited.

TABLE 7‐1 Highest Priority Infrastructure Improvements

Improvement No. Description Juneau‐Wide Priorities

Cross‐Juneau bikeway ‐ Identify gaps, bring all routes up to standards add signs. This focus on a bikeway way will raise the visibility of cycling in Juneau and will encourage residents to take more trips by bicycle.

11 13 66 99

Paved shoulder lanes – Add paved shoulder on North Douglas Highway from Boat Launch to the end (#94), Thane Road from downtown to the (#66), and Glacier Highway from Lena Loop to Tee Harbor (#11) and from Amalga Harbor to end (#13). These routes are part of the cross town bikeway and are recreation destinations. The paved shoulder will provide space for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Auke Bay (Figure 6) and Mendenhall Valley West (Figure 7) Priorities 2 12 Sidewalk improvements in University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) and Auke Bay area including



complete sidewalk system and crosswalks where needed (#2 and #12). The area includes residential and commercial uses, the UAS and an elementary school and has many pedestrians. Pedestrian improvements will make the area safer and will encourage increased pedestrian use.

3

Bike lane along Glacier Highway from Deharts to the Brotherhood Bridge Loop Road needs to be brought up to standards for width, pavement markings and signs (#3). The paved shoulder in this area is currently variable in width and does not have consistent pavement markings and signs. This route has high traffic volumes and speeds and is part of the cross town bike route.

Mendenhall Valley East Priorities (Figure 7)

27 30 31 33 34

Improve five Mendenhall Loop Road intersections for pedestrians (#27, #30, #31, #33 and #34). There are many community destinations, including schools, on both sides of this road. Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists have occurred at each of these intersections and steps need to be taken to make these crossings safer.

24 Widen Brotherhood Bridge and add bike lanes and a wider, safer sidewalk. The bridge is currently too narrow and is part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway (#24).

25

Improve Mendenhall Mall Road for non‐motorized users by adding crosswalks, bike facilities and sidewalks. This is close to Juneau’s largest population center and near many schools and community destinations. Signage and pavement markings to delineate the road from the parking lot are not adequate particularly in winter (#25).

26

Bike lane on Glacier Highway from Brotherhood Bridge to the Mendenhall Loop Road needs to be brought up to standards for width, pavement markings and signs (#26). The paved shoulder in this area is currently variable in width and does not have consistent pavement markings and signs. This route has high traffic volumes and speeds and is part of the cross town bike route.

36 Complete the Under Thunder separated path along the eastern edge of the Mendenhall Valley neighborhood (#36). This path will provide an off‐road alternative for commuters heading downtown and between neighborhoods in an area with high traffic volumes.

Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes Priorities (Figure 8)

45 53

Improve non‐motorized facilities on Glacier Highway in Lemon Creek from Sunny Point intersection to Vanderbilt Hill Road – complete sidewalks on south‐west side of the street and bring bike lane up to standard. The Lemon Creek area is very dangerous because it has a high number of pedestrians and significant commercial and industrial traffic moving at high speeds. Currently the paved bike lane is variable in width and there is only a sidewalk on one side of the street (#45 and #53).

46 47 Add or improve crosswalks along Glacier Highway at Anka Street, Walmart and Concrete



49 Way (#46, #49 and #47). This area has many pedestrians, including children and high traffic volumes and speeds. Crosswalks do not currently exist at Concrete Way or at Walmart. There have been accidents at all three locations.

Downtown and Thane Priorities (Figure 9)

62 Add a bike lane on Egan Drive from the Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main Street. This is part of the cross town bikeway and there is currently no provision for bicycles (#62).

68 69 74 75

Improve Egan Drive for pedestrians from the Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main Street by calming traffic and improving or adding crosswalks at Gold Creek/Glacier Avenue (#68), Whittier Street (#69), Willoughby Ave (#75) and Main Street (#74). This area is home to many community destinations and with new development underway that will increase pedestrian use.

63 64

Improve sidewalks, crosswalks and bike lanes on Glacier Avenue between Highland Drive and 12th Street. Focus improvements on safe routes to schools (#63 and #64).

61 Seawalk – Connect existing segments to complete the route from Aurora Harbor to the Rock Dump. This has been a community priority for many years. Once completed, it will provide benefits for residents and tourists and will relieve congestion on downtown sidewalks (#61).

Douglas Island Priorities (Figure 10)

84 Complete Douglas Highway bike lane from where it ends now near Gastineau School to the Savikko Road intersection (#84). This is part of the cross town bikeway and the bike lane ends abruptly making a dangerous situation.

86 87 88 89

Improve intersections on Douglas Highway at Cordova Street (#88), Crow Hill Drive (#86), Savikko Road (#89) and Douglas Library (#87). This is the main route through the area and several accidents involving pedestrians and bicycles have taken place at each intersection.

90

Treadwell Ditch – Rebuild trails and bridges along this 17 mile trail transportation and recreation corridor that connects Douglas and the Eaglecrest reaction area (#90). This trail connects several residential areas and will provide an off‐road alternative to Douglas Highway.

7.2 Safe Crosswalks, Bridges and Intersections

Most of Juneau’s intersections already have pedestrian cross‐walks, so improvements for non‐motorized users are to make crossing areas more obvious and visible through a variety of specific techniques such as adding new signs, pavement coloring, markings or other additives, additional street lighting, adding curb extensions and traffic calming measures. Crossing and intersection improvements listed on Table 7‐2 are at locations of accidents between pedestrians or cyclists and cars or were identified as difficult to cross by users, or both, and are



ranked by priority. For each crossing or intersection, recommendations to improve its use for non‐motorized users are included.

TABLE 7‐2 CROSSWALK, BRIDGES AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

High Priority Improvement No. Description

Auke Bay (Figure 6) and Mendenhall Valley West (Figure 7)

4

Fritz Cove Road and Glacier Highway • DOT may install a roundabout at this location • Second option would be full traffic light with signal for pedestrians or pedestrian activated light with

signs and continental crosswalk markings

5 Glacier Highway and Back Loop • Build roundabout at this intersection

6 Glacier Highway and Industrial Boulevard • Traffic light with signal for pedestrians • Second option is a pedestrian activated light with signs and continental crosswalk markings

Mendenhall Valley East (Figure 7)

22 Riverside Drive at Dimond Park • Pavement markings following AASHTO guidelines for bicycle turning lanes should be added • Consideration as part of the upcoming CBJ Riverside Drive pedestrian study

24

Brotherhood Bridge • Widen bridge to allow bike lanes at least 6 feet wide on both sides • Needs to be year round maintenance priority • Informal non‐motorized underpass formalized, widened and made safer

27

Nancy Street and Mendenhall Loop Road • Currently no signals • Addition of “pork chops” and decreasing the turning radius to shorten crossing distance on Nancy Street • Continental crosswalk markings and traffic calming along Mendenhall Loop Road will increase safety

28 McNugget Intersection • Adding signs and continental crosswalk markings • Consider adding additional crosswalk across Egan Drive on west side

29

Egan Drive and Riverside Drive • Decrease turning radius and add “pork chops’ and center refuge island to decrease crossing distances • Continental style crosswalk markings • Initiate safe routes to schools program and follow recommendations

30

Mendenhall Mall Road and Mendenhall Loop Road • Continental style crosswalk markings • Curb extensions and refuge island to decrease the crossing distance • Consider prohibiting right turn on red southbound on Mendenhall Loop Road • Traffic calming along Mendenhall Loop Road

31 Mendenhall Loop Road and Egan Drive • Additional signage and pavement markings • Curb extensions, decreased turning radius and add refuge island to decrease crossing distance

32 Glacier Highway and Vintage Boulevard • Intersection provides a pedestrian connection between Vintage Commercial area and residential area



south of Egan and there are currently no signals • Pedestrian activated signal or pedestrian underpass

33

Mendenhall Loop Road and Taku Boulevard • Currently not signalized • Add pedestrian activated signal and continental style crosswalk • Traffic calming along Mendenhall Loop Road

34 Mendenhall Loop Road and Mendenhall Boulevard • Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and add refuge island to decrease crossing distance • Traffic calming along Mendenhall Loop Road

35 Fred Meyer to Bus Stop • DOT did not allow a crosswalk at this location • Need to find a solution to make crossing safer for pedestrians

Lemon Creek and Twin Lakes (Figure 8)

47 Glacier Highway at Concrete Way • Add pedestrian activated signal and continental style crosswalk

48 Glacier Highway at Anka Street • Intersection was recently reconstructed • Consider traffic calming along Glacier Highway through this busy commercial and industrial area

49 Glacier Highway at Walmart • Add pedestrian activated signal and continental style crosswalk

Downtown and Thane (Figure 9)

68

Egan Drive and Glacier Avenue • Add pedestrian activated signal and continental style crosswalk • Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and add refuge island to decrease crossing distance • Traffic calming along Egan Drive

69

Egan Drive and Whittier Street • DOT is planning to construct a traffic light here • Pedestrian activated crosswalk needed • Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and add refuge island to decrease crossing distance • Traffic calming along downtown section of Egan Drive

70 Egan Drive and 12th Street • Add Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and add refuge island to decrease crossing distance • Continental crosswalk marking

71

Egan Drive and West 8th Street • Add Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and improve refuge island to decrease crossing distance

for pedestrians traveling along Egan Drive and crossing West 8th Street • Traffic calming along downtown section of Egan Drive

72

Egan Drive and 10th Street • Add Curb extensions, decrease turning radius and improve refuge island to decrease crossing distance • Continental crosswalk marking • Traffic calming along downtown section of Egan Drive

73 Willoughby Ave and Capital Ave • Continental crosswalk marking and crosswalk sign

74

Egan Drive and Main Street • Main Street will be rebuilt in Spring 2009 • Crosswalk markings and signage needed and where possible sidewalk width should be increased • Traffic calming along downtown section of Egan Drive

75 Egan Drive and Willoughby Ave



• Pedestrian activated crosswalk or signs and pavement markings • Traffic calming along downtown section of Egan Drive

Douglas Island (Figure 10)

83 Juneau‐Douglas Bridge • Sidewalks too narrow for both pedestrians and cyclists • Look at options to widen in the future

86 Douglas Highway and Crow Hill Drive • Add pedestrian activated signal, signs and continental style crosswalk • Curb extensions to decrease crossing distance

87 3rd St and Douglas Library • Add pedestrian activated signal, signs and continental style crosswalk • Curb extensions to decrease crossing distance

88 Douglas Highway and Cordova St • Ensure that pedestrian activated signal is functional and add signs and continental style crosswalk • Curb extensions to decrease crossing distance

89 Douglas Highway and Savikko Road • Continental style crosswalk and signs

Mid and Low Priority Auke Bay (Figure 6) and Mendenhall Valley West (Figure 7)

14 Glacier Highway and Engineers Cutoff • Add pedestrian activated signal, signs and continental style crosswalk

18 Back Loop Bridge • Traffic calming across bridge by narrowing driving lanes • Better signage and pavement markings for bike lanes on the bridge

19 Back Loop Road and Montana Creek Road • Add pedestrian activated signal, signs and continental style crosswalk

Mendenhall East Valley (Figure 7)

39 Mendenhall Loop Road at Floyd Dryden • Add pedestrian activated signal, signs and continental style crosswalk • Initiate safe routes to schools program

42 Second Pedestrian Bridge in Upper Mendenhall Valley • Build new pedestrian bridge over Mendenhall River near Melvin Park with connections to trails

43

Mendenhall Loop Road and Mendenhall River School • Pedestrian activated crosswalk needed • Signage and pavement markings • Initiate safe routes to schools program


52 Glacier Highway and Vanderbilt Hill Road • Follow AASHTO standards for bicycle turning lanes

54 Glacier Highway and Hospital Drive • Follow AASHTO standards for bicycle turning lanes

80 Irwin St and 12th Street • Continental style crosswalks and signs


91 Douglas Highway Roundabout • Improve signage for bicycles

93 Douglas Highway and David Street • Add pedestrians activated signal, continental style crosswalks and curb extensions



7.3 Sidewalk and Streetscape Improvements

Most of the streets in Juneau have sidewalks on at least one side. There are, however, streets that do not have sidewalks, or where existing sidewalks are not sufficient. Table 7‐3 lists the areas where sidewalk improvements are recommended. In some cases, these are areas where there is not currently a sidewalk and in other cases, they are areas where there is a sidewalk, but it needs improvement. Possible improvements include widening, adding a vegetated buffer or additional pedestrian elements such as curb extensions and crosswalks.

TABLE 7‐3 SIDEWALK AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS



2

Glacier Highway (Back Loop Road to Ferry Terminal) • Add sidewalk on both sides on Glacier Highway between Back Loop Road and the Auke Bay ferry terminal • Vegetated buffer between street and sidewalk and continental style crosswalks should be added • Initiate safe routes to schools program


25

Mendenhall Mall Road • Currently a privately owned road • Needs sidewalks on both sides, designated bike lanes and crosswalks • Parking needs to be formally separated from the street surface and crosswalks should be added where

needed in the parking lots


45 Glacier Highway (Sunny Point to Vanderbilt Hill Road) • Complete sidewalks on both sides of the street • Vegetated buffer between street and sidewalk and traffic calming will increase safety for pedestrians

46 Anka Street • Complete sidewalks on both sides of the street


64 Glacier Ave (Highland Drive to 10th Street) • Initiate safe routes to schools program and follow recommendations to make walking safer for children in

this areas

76 Egan Drive (Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main Street) • Add vegetated buffer between sidewalk and street Add crosswalks at intersections, complete with curb extensions and pavement markings




82

North Douglas Highway • Pedestrian facilities needed north of the bridge • Sidewalk needed on one side of the street • Second option is a separated path

85 Douglas Highway (Cordova Street to Savikko Road) • Complete sidewalks on both sides of the street • Initiate safe routes to schools program and follow recommendations


12

Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road (UAS area) • Sidewalk needed on both sides of the street • Consider added vegetated buffer along Glacier Highway where traffic volume and speeds are high • Should be integrated with sidewalk in the Auke Bay area


37

Riverside Drive (Long Run Drive to Tournure Street) • Sidewalks already exist, need to evaluate ways to make it safer for children • Traffic calming such as narrower travel lanes and curb extensions could be used • Initiate safe routes to schools program and follow recommendations


51 Central Avenue • Sidewalk needed on one side of the street

59 Sunny Drive • Sidewalk needed on one side of the street


78 Calhoun Avenue • Traffic calming to increase safety for pedestrians • Options include narrowing travel lanes, reducing speed limit, adding signs

79 Capital Avenue (Willoughby Avenue to 9th Street) • Sidewalk needed on one side of the street


92 Savikko Road • Sidewalks on at least one side of the street



7.4 Shoulder Lanes

There are several locations in Juneau where the shoulder lanes are not paved or where they are paved but are not wide enough to provide adequate space for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely. Table 7‐4 lists needed shoulder lane improvements.

TABLE 7‐4 SHOULDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS



66

Thane Road (Downtown to end) • Minimum of 5 feet on both sides • If there are segments where this is not possible, then a wide travel lane and share‐the‐road signs • A context sensitive street design should be used to ensure that safe design and appropriate traffic speeds • Signed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway


9 Fritz Cove Road • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides

10 Industrial Boulevard (Glacier Highway to Crazy Horse Drive) • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides

11 Glacier Highway (Lena Loop to Tee Harbor) • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides • Signed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway

13 Glacier Highway (Amalga Harbor to Echo Cove) • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides • Signed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway

17 Engineer’s Cutoff and Mendenhall Peninsula Road (Glacier Highway to end of road) • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides


94 North Douglas Highway (Boat Launch to the end of the road) • Ensure minimum of 5 feet on both sides • Signed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway



7.5 Bike Facilities

There are many routes in Juneau that are missing or have inadequate bike lanes. Specific recommendations are listed below on Table 7‐5. Some are part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway and others provide non‐motorized links to multiple community destinations. Bike lanes should be constructed to the standards described in Chapter 6.

TABLE 7‐5 BIKE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS



1

Back Loop Road (Mendenhall River to Glacier Highway) • Shoulder is already paved • Additional pavement markings and signs • Regular maintenance required • Singed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway

3

Glacier Highway (Back Loop Road to Brotherhood Bridge) • Shoulder is already paved • Additional pavement markings and signs to show that it is a bike lane • Intersection striping according to AASHTO standards • Regular maintenance required • Signed as part of cross‐Juneau bikeway • Street lights are required


23 Mendenhall Loop Road (Nancy Street to Egan Drive) • Bike lanes should be added on both sides • Alternately, bike access from the road to separated paths should be added

26 Egan Drive (Brotherhood Bridge to Mendenhall Loop Road) • Bike lanes should be improved in both directions • Clear access and signage to connect bike lanes with separated paths


53

Glacier Highway (through Lemon Creek) • Shoulder is already paved, but should be a minimum of 6 feet wide • Pavement markings and signage required • Bike lanes at intersections should follow ASHTO standards


60 South Franklin Street • Pavement markings and signage required

61 Egan Drive (10th St to South Franklin) • Signs and pavement markings required

63 Glacier Highway (Highland to Avenue to 10th St) • Signs and pavement markings required

65 Willoughby Ave (Glacier Avenue to Egan Drive)



• Signs and pavement markings required

67 10th Street (Egan Drive to Glacier Avenue) • Signs and pavement markings required


84 Douglas Highway (Gastineau School to Savikko Road) • Best option 5 feet on each side • If not possible consider share‐the‐road signs and sharrows

Mid and Low Priority Mendenhall East Valley (Figure 7)

40 Glacier Highway (Fred Meyer to separated path along Egan Drive) • Signs and pavement markings required • Regular maintenance required

38 Old Dairy Road (Glacier Highway to Crest Street) • Signs and pavement markings required


58 Channel Vista Dr (Glacier Highway to Hospital Path) • Signs and pavement markings required

7.6 Separated Multi‐Use Pathways

Recommendations for additional separated multi‐use paths are listed in Table 7‐6. Separated paths are generally located along busy streets with high traffic volumes and provide routes for pedestrians and for cyclists who are not comfortable riding on the road. In certain locations, separated paths can provide more direct non‐motorized connections to community destinations. Design and construction standards are listed in Chapter 6.

TABLE 7‐6 SEPARATED PATH IMPROVEMENTS



7 Back Loop Road (Mendenhall River to Glacier Highway) • Separated paved path at least 10 feet wide required on one side of the road

8 Glacier Highway (Back Loop Road to Brotherhood Bridge) • Separated paved path at least 10 feet wide required on north side of the road


36 Under Thunder Path • At least 10 feet wide


50 Path from Sunny Point to Vanderbilt Hill Road • Separated paved path at least 10 feet wide • Exact route to depend on land ownership and location of wetlands




61 Seawalk (Harris Harbor to Rock Dump) • Boardwalk as close to water as possible

77 Separated Path (Along Thane Road from Downtown to Sheep Creek) • Paved path 10 feet wide on the channel side of Thane Road where property ownership and topography

allow it


90 Treadwell Ditch • Unpaved path at least 10 feet wide connecting Douglas and Eaglecrest


15 UAS to pedestrian Bridge at Dimond Park • At least 10 feet wide and paved

16 Goat Hill to UAS Housing At least 10 feet wide and paved and should connect to Auke Lake Trail

20 Mendenhall Peninsula (Glacier Highway to end) • At least 10 feet wide and paved

21 Mendenhall River Trail to Back Loop Road south of Wren Dr • At least 10 feet wide and paved


41 Vintage Business Park trail to Dimond Park • At least 10 feet wide and paved


55 Coastal Trail (Yandukin Drive to Twin Lakes Path) • At least 10 feet wide and paved

56 Vanderbilt Hill to New Coastal Trail • At least 10 feet wide and paved

57 Twin Lakes to New Vanderbilt Path • At least 10 feet wide and paved


81 Gold Creek (Egan Dr to Cope Park) • Cantilevered path over Gold Creek



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 88 –– RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDEEDD PPOOLLIICCIIEESS AANNDD IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTIINNGG AACCTTIIOONNSS Chapter 7 lists the specific infrastructure improvements recommended to complete Juneau’s non‐motorized transportation network. This chapter establishes complimentary policies with implementing actions that will support and encourage active transportation and increase the safety and effectiveness of the existing non‐motorized system. Thirteen recommended policies with implementing actions are proposed, listed below in random order.

Policy 1. Complete preliminary engineering and cost estimation for highest priority non‐motorized infrastructure improvements.

Preliminary engineering and cost estimates should be completed for selected top priority non‐motorized infrastructure improvement projects. Having preliminary drawings, budgets and scope defined for Juneau’s non‐motorized projects will enable the CBJ to quickly respond to funding opportunities that become available now and in the future.

Implementing Action 1A. Prepare preliminary engineering documents and cost estimates for top priority non‐motorized infrastructure improvements so Juneau is ready to quickly take advantage of funding opportunities.

Policy 2. Amend Title 49, the Land Use Code, to ensure that subdivision improvements are required in a context‐sensitive manner. Adopting public improvement standards that address a finer grain of development detail than those currently adopted would ensure that there is a nexus between required improvements and the subject development, while also ensuring that public improvements are appropriate for the related development.

Complete Streets (CS) are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders and motorists of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street. Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a similar method of street design that specifically considers the context of road projects and uses a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to include all stakeholders in the design process. The goal is to develop streets that fit the physical setting and preserve the scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. In Juneau, implementation of non‐motorized improvements currently depends to a large extent on the familiarity of individual project managers, developers or staff reviewers with these concepts. Adopting a policy or amending the municipal code to require consideration of CS/CSS



during review or design of street projects will make Juneau’s approach more uniform. Adopting a policy or regulation such as this would mean that review of road construction and reconstruction projects would routinely consider features to optimize conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users as well as motorists. For each project, opportunities to remove obstacles, create incentives and enact standards to achieve a Complete Street would be assessed. Routine consideration of Context Sensitive Solutions would mean thinking about the proposed road project’s effect on the neighborhood, all road users, the design vehicle, setting and context on the front end of project design.

Policy 3. CBJ initiated projects that will build/reconstruct transportation infrastructure or trip destinations (offices, recreational facilities, etc.) will use complete streets and context sensitive solutions approaches prior to beginning project design. A formal pre‐application meeting similar to those held with private permit applicants will be conducted.

The goal of this policy is to enact and reinforce procedures that will enable the CBJ (whether the CBJ project is initiated by the Airport, Engineering, Harbors, Lands, Parks and Recreation or other department) to routinely consider Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solution (CSS) approaches, and the recommendations of the Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan when designing or upgrading streets, sidewalks, trails, harbors and other projects that walkers, bicyclers and others will use. One of the key points in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s CSS approach to street projects is to identify critical factors in the design of a road project early in a project. Waiting until the design is already underway or complete or the project is ready to bid is too late for meaningful review and modification. And, if changes, conditions or modifications are stipulated during project review at a post‐design phase it virtually always increases the overall cost and causes delay, both of which could be avoided by earlier communication and work. Non‐motorized transportation improvements should routinely be considered at the same time as the needs of motorists. This will help ensure that Juneau’s transportation system works for well for all its users; pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and motorists.

Implementing Action

3A. Add a section to CBJ 49.15 Article I or II (or other appropriate section), as follows: Preapplication conference for CBJ Initiated projects that will entirely or partly be used by pedestrians, bicyclists and other active users. The CBJ project manager/developer shall meet with the CDD director for the purpose of discussing the site and the proposed development activity. This meeting should occur before design work begins in earnest. The intent is to review the project using a Context Sensitive approach, to identify critical factors for non‐motorized transportation and if appropriate to communicate with stakeholders at the beginning of the design process.



Policy 4. Work with the Alaska DOT&PF Regional Director to establish a routine process to allow CBJ input at the front‐end of the design stage of Alaska DOT&PF street projects. This will save time and money for both parties and significantly enhance cooperation and communication.

Review of proposed State road or road reconstruction and improvement projects is governed by CBJ 49.15.580 and AS 35.30.010, which provides that the CBJ will review these projects and may impose conditions on and modifications to such projects. A challenge is that AS 35.30.010 states that the review must occur “prior to construction of a public project”, which gives a lot of latitude as to when a project comes before CDD and the CBJ Planning Commission for review. State projects are generally brought to CBJ for review after the design and environmental review have been completed and often just prior to construction. At this stage it is too late to effectively address design issues that would add or improve non‐motorized facilities. Southeast Region Alaska DOT&PF does not routinely communicate in this manner with communities in its region as they are all so small. However, in other Alaska DOT&PF regions early communication with communities occurs more regularly, for example in Anchorage since it is large enough to be a Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Juneau, however, is the largest city in Southeast Alaska DOT&PF region and it is the State Capitol. Informal but regular CBJ CDD input early in the design process (before the environmental review) will benefit both Alaska DOT&PF and CBJ by clarifying expectations, preventing delays and saving money due to better communication and cooperation on the front end. This would not take the place of the review under CBJ 49.15.580 and AS 35.30.010, but would be in addition and less formal. The CBJ CDD would gather parties like other pre‐application meetings and provide input, ideas and ensure Alaska DOT&PF project designers know about relevant planned local projects. A process such as this would likely make the subsequent formal review more predictable and routine for all.

Implementing Actions 4A. CBJ and Alaska DOT&PF should develop a Memorandum of Understanding to set out mutually beneficial expectations and timing on road project reviews. A goal would be to provide an opportunity for informal, but routine, CBJ CDD input early in the design process (before the environmental review) of Alaska DOT&PF road projects so that Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions approaches, as well as Juneau’s non‐motorized route priorities can be considered. All parties will benefit by clarifying expectations, preventing delays and saving money due to better communication and cooperation on the front end. 4B. When CBJ nominates road and other transportation projects to the Alaska DOT&PF Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Needs List, ensure that facilities for



non‐motorized transportation are included. Integrate non‐motorized and motorized improvements into single project descriptions when appropriate. It is also important to specifically include the non‐motorized elements in the project title. Words such as “sidewalk, boardwalk and bike lane” need to be included in the project title for clarity of intention.

Policy 5. Standardize consideration of non‐motorized improvements in subdivision design and review.

Roads, sidewalks and related improvements built by the private sector, typically as a part of subdivision design and construction, are subject to the road design standards set in CBJ 49.35 (streets at sections 230‐240, sidewalks at section 620, bike paths at section 630) and the CBJ Engineering Standard Details manual. When a subdivision is being designed and reviewed there is usually some negotiation between the developer and the Planning Commission before preliminary and final subdivision plats are approved. For example, under section 49.35.620 the requirements for building sidewalks can be waived in favor of providing alternative pedestrian routes outside of the road right‐of‐way. This process already provides for review of the project in the design phase when timing is right to consider non‐motorized improvements and use Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Street approaches. The challenge to date has been that individual reviewers have differing levels of familiarity with these concepts and they aren’t uniformly considered.

Implementing Actions 5A. Adopt Policy 2 to help provide uniform consideration of non‐motorized improvements during project review. 5B. Add a clause to CBJ 49.35.210 Street System (or other appropriate section), that street and street reconstruction projects will review the Juneau Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan and identify whether any recommended infrastructure improvements (chapter 7) have a nexus or connection with the proposed project, and if so, if and how they could be implemented. 5C. In CBJ chapter 49.35 Public Improvements, bike paths are listed under Article VI. Pedestrian Access. CBJ municipal code at Title 72 subjects bicyclists on roadways to all the duties applicable to vehicles. Accordingly, CBJ 49.35.630 Bike Paths, should be listed under Article II. Streets. 5D. Update the CBJ Engineering Standard Details to include examples, standard design details for non‐motorized facilities and approximate costs for crossing treatment options. 5E. In new subdivisions and neighborhoods, install facilities for non‐motorized transportation, such as paths connecting cul‐de‐sacs or linking to broader trail systems, at the same time as the rest of the transportation network. This will ensure home purchasers



know about and can use the non‐motorized network and will prevent later ‘surprises.’ Note that not all neighborhood trails that connect cul‐de‐sacs and serve other non‐motorized purposes that have been approved by the Planning Commission are captured on the maps.

Policy 6. CBJ Community Development Department should be responsible for non‐motorized transportation planning.

CBJ Community Development Department (CDD) is responsible for preparing the CBJ Comprehensive Plan and (with others) the Area Wide Transportation Plan, both of which set policy and goals on all forms of transportation. The CBJ Parks and Recreation Department was responsible for overseeing preparation of this (and past) Non‐Motorized Transportation Plans. During this 2009 plan update however, it became clear that many aspects of non‐motorized transportation are now less ‘recreational’ in nature and more linked to constructing a complete street network that addresses the needs of all users: motorists, public transit riders, cyclists and pedestrians. To be most successful in accomplishing a complete transportation network motorized and non‐motorized transportation planning, design and construction should occur together.

Implementing Action

6A. Move responsibility for the Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan and its implementation to the CBJ Community Development Department. They will be assisted by the CBJ Parks and Recreation, Engineering, and Land and Resources departments.

Policy 7. Establish a bicycle/pedestrian education and signage program.

While new paths and engineering projects are high profile and exciting, it is education, encouragement and enforcement that make a difference in day to day familiarity and use of a community’s non‐motorized transportation network. A program that regularly encourages and educates residents about walking and bicycling opportunities and health benefits is vital to a successful system. The CBJ can lead development of a series of non‐motorized education workshops and programs. One program would target informing bicyclists and motorists about respective rules and road sharing. Relevant programs and materials have been developed that could be used (for example, the City and Borough of Sitka, as part of its bicycle friendly community project created a series of posters and public service announcements about the rules for cyclists and motorists). A second component of the education program could be focused on educating the community in new trends in street design. A third part of the education program could be focused on providing bicycle education to both adults and children in how to use non‐motorized facilities safely.



Implementing Actions 7A. Collaborate with Juneau Freewheelers Bicycle Club, schools and the local media to develop a share‐the‐road campaign. The purpose of this campaign would be to educate cyclists, pedestrians and motorists about their rights and responsibilities on the road and the importance of respecting other users of the transportation system. This program would be community wide and could use public service announcements, posters and flyers to get the word out. 7B. Develop a series of workshops for street engineers and designers, both public and private sector, that focuses on context sensitive design and complete streets. This would help inform Juneau engineers about best practices, sustainable transportation and associated costs. 7C. Offer courses for both children and adults on the rules of the road, helmets, lights and other recommended or required equipment, and how to use the various non‐motorized facilities safely. Courses for children should be offered through the schools. 7D. Select appropriate signs that meet all applicable standards and apply them consistently to intersections, bike lanes, shoulder lanes, separated paths and crosswalks.

Policy 8. Commit to a maintenance program for non‐motorized facilities.

Regular maintenance of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities is required in order to have a functioning non‐motorized transportation network. Gravel and debris on bike lanes, paved shoulders or separated paths is very dangerous for cyclists. Snow and ice on all types of non‐motorized transportation facilities can lead to conditions where people are forced to walk and cycle on the road because sidewalks or bike lanes are impassable. Snow on sidewalks and large snow banks near crosswalks are especially dangerous where children are walking to school. Maintenance must be year round and include regular sweeping, pavement repair, drainage repair, and pavement symbol and sign replacement. Many of the public comments received during this plan’s development were related to maintenance. Glacier Highway between Vanderbilt Hill Road and Fred Meyers was mentioned repeatedly for hazardous bicycling conditions due to debris in the bike lane.

Implementing Actions 8A. Establish a regular sweeping program for the cross‐Juneau bikeway. The cross‐Juneau bikeway should be swept on a regular schedule. Enforcement of rules for contractors to sweep roads near construction zones, and for trucks to cover their loads and have tailgates will help reduce debris. The cross‐Juneau bikeway should also be a priority for snow removal.



8B. Snow removal for main pedestrian routes should be a city priority. Both CBJ and the State should invest in sidewalk snow clearing equipment. Areas near schools and transit stops should be a priority. Egan Drive downtown, the Douglas Bridge, Douglas Highway south of the bridge, Mendenhall Loop Road, Glacier Highway between Vanderbilt Hill Road and Fred Meyers, and Egan Drive between McNugget Intersection and the Brotherhood Bridge are all priorities. 8C. Enforce the rules requiring property owners to clear the sidewalks adjacent to their property. This could involve both public service announcements about the importance of clearing sidewalks for all community members and also fining property owners who do not comply. 8D. Initiate an education program tailored to CBJ employees who perform street and trail maintenance. This could include everything from best practices in snow removal and storage, to joint identification and agreement on high priority routes to target limited maintenance dollars.

Policy 9. Actively support safe routes to schools programs.

Safe Routes to Schools is an international movement aimed at increasing the number of children who can safely walk and bike to school. Locally, this program is run through the Alaska ADOT&PF and provides grants to local and regional agencies, and nonprofit organizations to help address planning, design and construction improvements in the vicinity of schools. The Juneau School District has initiated its own safe routes to school program. This could be even more effective by utilizing the resources of the Alaska DOT&PF program and coordinating with the CBJ Community Development and Engineering departments.

Implementing Action 9A. Work with Alaska DOT&PF to enact a formal Safe Routes to Schools program to: a) identify primary walking and bicycling routes to Juneau schools, b) identify gaps and deficiencies, c) prioritize improvements d) pursue funding to implement (through Safe Routes to Schools funding and other).

Policy 10. Commit to becoming a bicycle friendly community.

The League of American Bicyclists sponsors an awards program recognizing cities that support bicycling. Sitka is currently the only community in Alaska that is recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community. To receive this award communities are evaluated in the categories of engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation, and planning. The award process can raise awareness about bicycling in the community and help focus energy towards active transportation.



Implementing Action 10A. Establish a baseline count of walking and bicycling at key locations in Juneau. Subsequent counts of users of Juneau’s non‐motorized transportation network can then occur to focus non‐motorized priorities in the future and determine if improvements are encouraging residents to walk and bike more often. Consider setting a specific target for increased numbers of residents walking or bicycling.

10B. Set a municipal goal to achieve a Complete Streets bronze, silver or gold level achievement, as proposed by the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, by a certain date (see Appendix E, Rocky Mountain Institute’s developing Sustainable Community Development Code).

Policy 11. Provide more bicycle racks.

Biking destinations in Juneau often lack adequate bike parking facilities. Existing bike racks often do not have enough space to accommodate the number of cyclists using the facility. Secure, covered, well designed bike racks help encourage residents to take more trips by bicycle and are required for the development of a complete non‐motorized network. Bike racks should be located at schools, commercial buildings, apartments, parks, transit stops and hubs, malls, recreation areas and on buses.

Implementing Actions

11A. Add a section to CBJ 49.35.630 (or other appropriate section) to establish standards for bike racks. Require installation of bicycle parking as part new building construction and major renovations. Standards could include the number of bicycle spaces (both covered and open) to be provided, the location of bike racks and specifications for design.

11B. Partner with local businesses and artists to install decorative bike racks at key community destinations. These racks should support the bicycle frame, be U‐lock compatible, and be interesting to look at (see photos above).

Decorative Bike Racks in Whitehorse (Source: City of Whitehorse)



11C. Continue to fund and install bicycle racks on Capital Transit buses.

Policy 12. Support non‐motorized advocacy.

Strategies that encourage people to walk and bike will have many benefits for both individuals and the community. More people using the system means a broader base of community support and will make it easier to secure funding for non‐motorized projects. To achieve the best results, the design and development of non‐motorized facilities should be approached in a coordinated manner. At the Alaska State Bike Summit in Anchorage during April 2009 community representatives observed that communities with the strongest non‐motorized advocates were the most successful in obtaining funding and support for non‐motorized routes.

Implementing Action 12A. Establish a bicycle and pedestrian advisory group to allow community members and users of the network to be directly involved in developing and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This committee could advise the CBJ, Alaska DOT&PF, Trail Mix Inc. and others. In addition or alternatively, support groups like the CBJ Freewheelers, actively support Bike to Work and Bike to School days, support installation of shower facilities in CBJ work places, and support similar programs and initiatives that encourage active transportation.

Policy 13. Designate and support a cross‐Juneau bikeway.

In order to identify the safest and most direct route across town and between neighborhoods, and to encourage non‐motorized commuting, Juneau should designate a cross‐Juneau bikeway. Commuter cyclists prefer to travel on bike lanes on the road as these are usually the safest and most direct routes. Separated paths can also form part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway especially where they provide more direct access to destinations and have few intersections where the path crosses a street. The proposed cross‐Juneau bikeway for Juneau is shown on Figure 11. Ensuring that all these bike lanes are constructed to AASHTO standards and the ADOT&PF highway preconstruction manual on “Bicycle Ways” should be a high priority for the non‐motorized network. The cross‐Juneau bikeway should also be a priority for year round maintenance. This includes sweeping, snow removal and repairs to the pavement.

Implementing Actions

13A. Complete or improve the sections of the cross‐Juneau bikeway listed below (see Figure 11 and Table 8‐1).



TABLE 8‐1 – MISSING SEGMENTS IN CROSS‐JUNEAU BIKEWAY Improvement #

(see Tables 7‐5 and 7‐6) Description 1 Back Loop Road (Back Loop Bridge to Glacier Highway) 3 Glacier Highway (Back Loop Road to Brotherhood Bridge) 23 Mendenhall Loop Road (Nancy Street to Egan Drive) 26 Egan Drive (Brotherhood Bridge to Mendenhall Loop Road) 53 Glacier Highway (through Lemon Creek) 60 South Franklin Street 65 Willoughby Avenue (Glacier Highway to Egan Drive) 67 10th Street (Egan Drive to Glacier Avenue) 84 Douglas Highway (Cordova Street to Savikko Road)

13B. In the longer term, complete a separated path through Lemon Creek (improvement #57, table 7.6) and a separated coastal path from Sunny Point to Downtown Juneau (#55 and 61, table 7.6). These paths will provide routes that are safe and direct, will be part of the cross‐Juneau bikeway and should be maintained for year round use. 13C. Produce a map showing Juneau’s cross‐Juneau bikeway system and make it available to residents and visitors. Routes should have consistent signs that include directional plates (i.e., to Douglas, to Downtown) and comply with the MUTCD standards. 13D. Prioritize year‐round maintenance for the cross‐Juneau bikeway.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR 99 –– FFUUNNDDIINNGG SSOOUURRCCEESS The table below lists potential funding sources for non‐motorized facilities. This includes opportunities that are from federal, state and local government sources as well as from private foundations. The purpose, project eligibility, timing and website are also included.

TABLE 9‐1 – FUNDING SOURCES FOR NON‐MOTORIZED FACILITIES Funding Source Purpose Project Eligibility Timing Contact Website CBJ CBJ Marine Passenger Fee

To address the impacts caused by marine passenger ship industry

Grants can be for design, construction, beautification and enhancement of facilities to relieve impacts of marine passenger ships and marine passengers and the acquisition of land for this. Seawalk and pedestrian improvements downtown would be eligible.

Project solicitation takes place annually in December

CBJ City Managers Office www.juneau.org/manager/passenger_fees.php

CBJ CBJ Capital Improvement Program

Identifies CBJ funding for street improvements, parks and recreation, etc

Street upgrading projects can include facilities for non‐motorized. Trail projects can also be funded.

City Manager submits CIP proposed projects annual by April 5

CBJ Engineering Department www.juneau.org/engineering/CIP/FY09‐14_Final.php

State Safe Routes to School – Alaska DOT&PF

Funding to help address planning, design and construction improvements in the vicinity of schools

Infrastructure: Planning, design, and construction of infrastructure‐related projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on‐street bicycle facilities, off‐street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bicycle parking facilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools. Non ‐infrastructure: Activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment, and funding for training, volunteers, and managers of safe

Applications accepted every April and July. Next deadline is July 29, 2009.

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/saferoutes/grants.shtml



TABLE 9‐1 – FUNDING SOURCES FOR NON‐MOTORIZED FACILITIES Funding Source Purpose Project Eligibility Timing Contact Website

routes to school programs. State/Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – Alaska DOT&PF

Federal funding for developing and improvement roads and trails

Non‐Motorized facilities can be included as part of road building and reconstruction projects. The TRAK program funds trails (only 2% of total budget)

Projects can be nominated to the needs list at any time.

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/cip_stip/index.shtml

State/Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program – Alaska DOT&PF

Funding to reduce fatalities and major injuries on roads

Potential funding to improve conditions along corridors with many accidents (ie Glacier Highway through Lemon Creek and Mendenhall Loop Road).

DOT engineers submit projects for state‐wide approval.

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml#

Private Bikes Belong Coalition

Private Foundation that funds bicycle facilities and advocacy.

Grants for facility and advocacy projects, Local governments can apply for grants to build paved bike paths and unpaved trails and are encouraged to partner with local bike advocacy group. Grants of up to $10,000 awarded quarterly.

Applications accepted quarterly

www.bikesbelong.org/grants

Private REI Bicycle Friendly Communities Grant Program

Grants for communities that have been awarded Bicycle Friendly Community Status

Funding is intended to help communities maintain the momentum built during the Bicycle Friendly Communities application process. The focus is on building ridership and promoting bicycling.

By invitation only. Bikes Belong Coalition and REI www.bikesbelong.org/reibfc

Federal National Energy Technology Laboratory

Grants to reduce fossil fuel emissions

Grant to local governments to reduce fossil fuel emissions in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and, to the maximum extent practicable, maximizes benefits for local and regional communities

Closed July 26, 2009 Go to www.grants.gov and look for Funding Opportunity Number DE‐FOA‐0000013

State of Alaska SeaTrails

Funding for construction, signage, monitoring and marketing of non‐motorized trails in Southeast Alaska

Southeast Alaska communities, preferably Seatrail partner communities.

Periodically available, not on a schedule. $245,000 awarded in April 2009. Now accepting letters of interest for its upcoming Kiosk Development Project. 10‐15 kiosk kits

www.seatrails.org




will be designed and transported to interested SEAtrails communities.

Federal NPS Land and Water Conservation Fund (PL‐578)

Program for acquiring land for outdoor recreation

Grants are available for the acquisition of land and the development of public outdoor recreation facilities. Grants are limited to 50 percent of the total project cost. The cities and counties are responsible for the remaining project cost. Bicycle/pedestrian paths have been funded under this program in instances where they have been shown, as needed, in connection with outdoor recreation activities.

November 2009 http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/grants/

Federal Transit Authority (FTA/USFS) Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program

Makes National Forest System lands explicitly eligible and includes bicycle, pedestrian and non‐motorized watercraft projects in the definition of alternative transportation.

The new Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program (also known as Transit in the Parks) provides funds to support public transportation projects in parks and public lands. TEA‐21 (Title III, Section 3039) authorized a study of transit needs in national parks and related public lands. Two categories: planning and implementation (“capital”). Planning projects are intended to identify the best alternative solution to a public land’s transportation problem. Implementation projects (or “capital projects”) are projects that, in general, involve purchasing or constructing alternative transportation facilities or equipment. $25 million in 2008, $29 million in 2009

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (5320) Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Richard F. Krochalis, FTA Regional Administrator, Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142, Seattle, WA 98174–1002 (206) 220–7954.

Federal Transit Authority

Range of projects. Some may be applicable.

Federal Transit Act (SAFETEA‐LU) Grant Programs • Metropolitan & Statewide Planning (5303, 5304,

5305) • Large Urban Cities (5307)

Various. http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html




• Clean Fuels Grant Program (5308) • Major Capital Investments (New Starts & Small

Starts) (5309) • Rail and Fixed Guideway Modernization (5309) • Bus and Bus Facilities (5309, 5318) • Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons

with Disabilities (5310) • Rural and Small Urban Areas (5311) • Rural Transit Assistance Program (5311(b)(3)) • Public Transportation on Indian Reservations

(5311(c)) • Transit Cooperative Research Program (5313) • National Research & Technology Program (5314) • Job Access and Reverse Commute Program

(5316) • New Freedom Program (5317) • Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (5320) • Alternatives Analysis (5339) • University Transportation Centers Program (TEA‐

21 5505) • Over the Road Bus Program/Over the Road Bus

Accessibility (3038) • Flexible Funding for Highway and Transit • National Fuel Cell Technology Development

Program (SAFETEA‐LU 3045)



BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY Active Transportation Canada. (www.activetransportation‐canada.blogspot.com) Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions. Anchorage Bicycle Plan, Public Review Draft, 2008. Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions. Anchorage Pedestrian Plan, 2007. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. Bike Pittsburgh, Inc. (www.bike‐pgh.org) City of Ann Arbor. City of Ann Arbor Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2007. City and Borough of Sitka. Sitka Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2006. City of Homer. Homer Non‐Motorized Transportation and Trail Plan, 2004. City of Kirkland. Kirkland Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2001. City of Portland. Bicycle Master Plan, 1998. City of Maple Valley. Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2004. City of Santa Clarita. Non‐Motorized Transportation Plan, 2007. Complete Streets Coalition. (www.completestreets.org) Halifax Regional Municipality. Active Transportation Plan, 2006. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, 2006. (www.ite.org/css/) Klop, Jeremy. “Complete Streets”. The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, January 2008. Laplante, John, P.E. Ptoe and Barbara McCann. “Complete Streets; We Can Get There From Here”. ITE Journal, May 2008. McCann, Barbara. “Complete the Streets!” Planning, May 2005. National Center for Safe Routes to Schools. (www.saferoutesinfo.org)



NYC Bike Maps. New York City’s Bike Paths, Bike Lanes and Greenways. (www.nycbikemaps.com) Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle Manual, 2006. (www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED) Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (www.walkinginfo.org) Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative. Best Practices for Complete Streets, 2005. (www.completestreets.org/documents/FinalReportII_BPCompleteStreets.pdf) US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Tuner‐Fairbank Highway Research Centre. (www.tfhrc.gov) US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2004. National Biking and Walking Study 10 Year Status Report. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/index.htm) Voigt, Ken. Ayres Associates. Creating Streets Not Highways. Western Planners Conference, 2008. Walkable Streets. (www.walkablestreets.com)


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA –– AALLAASSKKAA AADDMMIINNIISSTTRRAATTIIVVEE CCOODDEE 13 AAC 02.385. Applicability of regulations to bicycles

(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle as set out in this chapter, in addition to special regulations in secs. 385 ‐ 420 of this chapter, except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature have no application.

(b) No person may violate the provisions of secs. 385 ‐ 420 of this chapter. The parent or guardian of a child may not authorize or knowingly permit a child to violate a provision of this chapter.

(c) When signs are erected indicating that no right, left or U‐turn is permitted, no person operating a bicycle may disobey the direction of the sign unless first pulling to the extreme right or shoulder of the road, dismounting and making the turn as a pedestrian.

13 AAC 02.395. Riding on bicycles and certain non‐motorized conveyances

(a) Repealed 6/28/79.

(b) No person operating a bicycle upon a highway may carry a person other than the operator, unless the bicycle is equipped with a seat for the passenger, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to his person in a backpack or sling.

(c) No person operating a bicycle or other non‐motorized conveyance may attach, hold on by hand or otherwise secure the bicycle or conveyance or himself to another vehicle so as to be towed or pulled.

(d) A person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall maintain control of the bicycle and shall at all times keep at least one hand upon the handlebars of the bicycle.

(e) No person may operate a unicycle, coaster, roller skates, or a similar device on a roadway.

(f) This section does not apply upon a roadway closed to motorized vehicle traffic.

13 AAC 02.400. Riding bicycles on roadways and bicycle paths

(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, and shall give way to the right as far as practicable to a motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction when the driver of the motor vehicle gives audible signal.

(b) Persons riding bicycles on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding bicycles two abreast may not impede traffic and, in a laned roadway, shall ride within the farthest right lane.

(c) When a shoulder of the highway is maintained in good condition, an operator of a bicycle shall use the shoulder of the roadway.

(d) A person operating a bicycle on a trail, path, sidewalk, or sidewalk area shall

(1) exercise care to avoid colliding with other persons or vehicles;

(2) give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian; and

(3) yield the right‐of‐way to any pedestrian.


(e) Repealed 6/28/79.

(f) A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall, unless he dismounts and crosses as a pedestrian, comply with the provisions of sec. 200 of this chapter. The operator of a bicycle must give a signal by hand and arm continuously during the last 100 feet traveled unless the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. When stopped to await an opportunity to turn, a hand and arm signal must be given continuously by the operator.

(g) No person may ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in a business district or where prohibited by an official traffic‐control device.

(h) No bicycle race may be conducted upon a roadway, except as provided under AS 05.35.

13 AAC 02.420. Parking of bicycles (a) No person may park a bicycle on a street or sidewalk in a manner which obstructs pedestrian traffic or the parking and driving of motor vehicles.

(b) No person may secure a bicycle to any of the following publicly owned facilities:

(1) fire hydrants;

(2) police and fire callboxes;

(3) electric traffic signal poles;

(4) stanchions or poles located within bus zones or stands;

(5) stanchions or poles located within 25 feet of an intersection; or

(6) trees under 10 inches in diameter.

(c) A bicycle parked on a highway must comply with the provisions of this chapter regulating the parking of vehicles.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB –– JJUUNNEEAAUU CCOODDEE GGOOVVEERRNNIINNGG NNOONN‐‐MMOOTTOORRIIZZEEDD

TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN 72.02.385 Applicability of regulations.

(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle as set out in this chapter, in addition to special regulations in this article, except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature have no application.

(b) No person may violate the provisions of this article. The parent or guardian of a child may not authorize or knowingly permit a child to violate a provision of this chapter.

(c) When signs are erected indicating that no right turn, left turn or U‐turn is permitted, no person operating a bicycle may disobey the direction of the sign unless first pulling to the extreme right or shoulder of the road, dismounting and making the turn as a pedestrian.

72.02.395 Riding on bicycles and certain non‐motorized conveyances.

(a) No person operating a bicycle upon a highway may carry a person other than the operator, unless the bicycle is equipped with a seat for the passenger, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to the adult in a backpack or sling.

(b) No person operating a bicycle or other non‐motorized conveyance may attach, hold on by hand or otherwise secure the bicycle or conveyance or himself or herself to another vehicle so as to be towed or pulled.

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall maintain control of the bicycle and shall at all times keep at least one hand upon the handlebars of the bicycle.

(d) No person may operate a unicycle, coaster, roller skates, inline skates or a similar device on a roadway in a negligent manner.

(e) This section does not apply upon a roadway closed to motorized vehicle traffic.

(f) Where an official traffic control device prohibits non‐motorized conveyances on certain heavily traveled highways, no one using a non‐motorized conveyance shall move or ride along such highways or their easements.

72.02.400 Riding on roadways and paths.

(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, and shall give way to the right as far as practicable to a motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction when the driver of the motor vehicle gives an audible signal.

(b) Persons riding bicycles on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding bicycles two abreast may not impede traffic and, in a laned roadway, shall ride within the farthest right lane.


(c) When a shoulder of the highway is maintained in good condition, an operator of a bicycle shall use the shoulder of the roadway.

(d) A person operating a bicycle on a trail, path, sidewalk or sidewalk area shall:

(1) Exercise care to avoid colliding with other persons or vehicles;

(2) Give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian; and

(3) Yield the right‐of‐way to any pedestrian.

(e) A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall, unless the person dismounts and crosses as a pedestrian, comply with the provisions of section 72.02.200. The operator of a bicycle must give a signal by hand and arm continuously during the last 100 feet traveled unless the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. When stopped to await an opportunity to turn, a hand and arm signal must be given continuously by the operator.

(f) No person may ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in a business district or where prohibited by an official traffic control device.

(g) No bicycle race may be conducted upon a roadway, except as provided under AS 05.35.

Business district means the territory contiguous to and including a highway, other than a controlled‐access highway, when within any 600 feet along the highway there are buildings in use for business or industrial purposes, including hotels, banks, office buildings, railroad stations or public buildings other than schools which occupy at least 300 feet of frontage on one side or 300 feet collectively on both sides of the highway; however, if the highway is physically divided into two or more roadways, only those buildings facing each roadway separately may be regarded.

72.02.410 Helmet required for persons under the age of 18.

No person under the age of 18 years shall ride or operate a bicycle on any public property or private property that is open for public use unless he or she is wearing a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety. Such helmet must meet or exceed the safety standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or substantially similar standard, and shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the bicycle is in motion. Violation of this subsection shall be an infraction punishable by a $25.00 fine, provided that the fine shall be waived upon presentation of proof that a bicycle helmet that meets the requirements of this subsection was purchased or acquired for the bicycle operator after the citation was issued.

72.02.420 Parking.

(a) No person may park a bicycle on a street or sidewalk in a manner which obstructs pedestrian traffic or the parking and driving of motor vehicles.

(b) No person may secure a bicycle to any of the following publicly owned facilities:

(1) Fire hydrants;

(2) Police and fire callboxes;

(3) Electric traffic signal poles;


(4) Stanchions or poles located within bus zones or stands;

(5) Stanchions or poles located within 25 feet of an intersection; or

(6) Trees under ten inches in diameter.

(c) A bicycle parked on a highway must comply with the provisions of this chapter regulating the parking of vehicles.

(CBJ Code 1970, § 72.12.065; Serial No. 71‐66, § 4, 1971)

State law references: Similar provisions, 13 AAC 02.420.

72.10.140 Use of skateboards, roller skates, roller blades and similar devices restricted.

(a) No person may operate a skateboard, roller skates, roller blades, unicycle, coaster, scooter, or similar device:

(1) On a sidewalk, roadway, or street within certain portions of the central business district. The portion of the central business district in which such devices are prohibited is shown on the attached Exhibit A and described as follows: Franklin Street from the Marine Park Parking Garage to Fourth Street, Seward Street from Marine Way to Fourth Street, Marine Way from the Marine Park Parking Garage to Main Street, the following streets between Franklin Street and Main Street‐‐Front Street, Second Street, Third Street and Fourth Street‐‐all of Shattuck Way, Municipal Way and Ferry Way;

(2) Upon any roadway or street except while crossing a roadway or street in a crosswalk;

(3) On private property which has been posted with a clearly visible sign prohibiting such operation;

(4) Within six feet of the Fisherman's Memorial;

(5) In the Marine Park Parking Garage;

(6) At any time a ship is moored at the Steamship Dock, in the upper portion of the Marine Park Plaza, from the Marine Park Parking Garage to the foot of the semi‐circular stairs, as shown on the attached Exhibit B; or

(7) At any time a commercial passenger vehicle is present in the Marine Park Plaza, in the lower portion of the Marine Park Plaza, from the top of the semi‐circular stairs to the Miners' Statue, as shown on the attached Exhibit B.

(b) This section does not apply to roadways, streets, or the Marine Park Plaza while those facilities are being used for a parade or other activity for which a permit has been issued under this title if the use of a skateboard, roller skates, roller blades, unicycle, coaster, scooter, or similar device is part of the activity.

(c) The manager or his designee may establish rules for use of the Marine Park Plaza.


62.35.020 Duty to construct.

Whenever application for a building permit is made for a new residential, industrial, commercial or other structure; or for an alteration of an existing structure, the cost of which alteration is estimated to be in excess of $10,000.00; the owner of any such structure within the area designated on the map entitled ________ or any area zoned commercial within the City and Borough shall also apply to the City and Borough engineer for a sidewalk permit and construct to standards approved by the City and Borough engineer a sidewalk if such does not then exist, or repair or reconstruct a sidewalk if any existing sidewalk is not in repair, or not free from defect or not safe, on all sides of the property upon which such structure is situated so long as any such side adjoins or abuts a dedicated street or walkway. The City and Borough engineer may waive the construction, reconstruction or repair requirement herein in whole or in part if the sidewalk construction in any particular location is impossible or unfeasible.

62.35.040 Maintenance required.

An owner of real property shall keep the sidewalk or sidewalk door, if any, adjacent to or abutting on such real property in a good state of repair and clear of obstructions and hazards. Violation of this section constitutes an infraction punishable as provided in subsection 01.40.010(b)(3).

62.35.080 Specifications and permit.

No person shall construct or repair any sidewalk except in accordance with the line, grade, slope and specifications established by the City and Borough engineer or without first obtaining a written permit from the City and Borough engineer.

72.02.487 Driving on sidewalks.

(a) The driver of any vehicle, except a bicycle, shall not drive within any sidewalk area except at a permanent or temporary driveway.

(b) No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within the business district.

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC –– PPUUBBLLIICC IINNPPUUTT FFOORRMM


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD –– RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDEEDD NNOONN‐‐MMOOTTOORRIIZZEEDD IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTTSS,, BBYY AARREEAA Recommendations – Mendenhall West

Rec. No

Priority Improvement Type

2001 Area Wide Plan

2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

1 High Improve bike lanes on Back Loop Rd Mendenhall River to Auke Bay Bike Lane No No No DOT

2 High Improve sidewalks and crosswalks from Back Loop Rd to Ferry Terminal Sidewalk Improvements

Yes No No DOT

3 High Improve bike lanes on Glacier Hwy from UAS to Brotherhood Bridge Paved Shoulder Yes No No DOT

4 High Fritz Cove Rd and UAS intersection needs improving for non‐motorized modes Intersection and Crossings

Partly No No DOT

5 High Intersection of Back Loop Rd and Glacier Hwy needs pedestrian improvements Intersection and Crossings

Yes Yes No DOT

6 High Intersection of Glacier Hwy and Industrial Blvd needs crosswalk Intersection and Crossings

Partly No No DOT

7 High New separated path needed along Back Loop Rd from Mendenhall River to Auke Bay Separated Path Yes Partly No DOT 8 High New separated path needed along Glacier Hwy from Brotherhood Bridge to UAS Separated Path No Yes No DOT 9 Mid Bike lanes needed on Fritz Cove Rd Paved Shoulder Yes No Yes DOT 10 Mid Bike lanes needed on Industrial Blvd from Glacier Hwy to Crazy Horse Dr Paved Shoulder Yes No Yes CBJ 11 Mid Shoulder lane should be paved on Glacier Hwy from Upper Lena Loop to Tee Harbor Paved Shoulder No No Yes DOT

12 Mid Pedestrian improvements are needed along Back Loop Rd in UAS area Sidewalk Improvements

Yes Yes No

DOT

13 Mid Shoulder lane should be paved on Glacier Hwy from Amalga Harbor to end of road Paved Shoulder Yes No Yes DOT

14 Mid Intersection of Glacier Hwy and Engineers Cutoff improvements for non‐motorized Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT

15 Mid Separated path needed from UAS across to pedestrian bridge at Dimond Park Separated Path No No No NA 16 Low Separated path needed from Goat Hill to UAS student housing Separated Path No No No NA 17 Low Bike lanes should be added along Engineer's Cutoff Paved Shoulder Yes No Yes DOT

18 Low Back Loop Bridge needs improved facilities for non‐motorized modes Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT

19 Low Improve intersection of Back Loop Rd and Montana Creek Rd for non‐motorized modes

Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT

20 Low Separated path needed on Mendenhall Peninsula Separated Path No No Yes NA 21 Low Separated path between Mendenhall River Trail and Back Loop Rd south of Wren St Separated Path No No Yes NA


Recommendations – Mendenhall East Rec. No

Priority Improvement Type 2001 Area Wide Plan

2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

22 High Bicycle access to Dimond Park needs to be improved Intersection and Crossing

No No No CBJ

23 High Bike lanes transition needs to be improved on Mendenhall Loop Rd from Nancy St to Egan Dr

Bike Lane No No Yes DOT

24 High Brotherhood Bridge needs improvements for non‐motorized modes (including underpass)


Yes No Yes DOT

25 High Mendenhall Mall Rd needs improvements for non‐motorized modes Sidewalk Improvements

Yes No No Private

26 High Bike lane improvements needed on Egan Dr from Brotherhood Bridge to Mendenhall Loop Rd

Bike Lane No No Partly DOT

27 High Intersection of Nancy St and Mendenhall Loop Rd needs improvement Intersection and Crossings

Yes No No DOT

28 High McNugget intersection needs improvements for non‐motorized modes Intersection and Crossings

No No Yes DOT

29 High Intersection of Riverside Drive and Egan Dr needs improvements for non‐motorized modes


No No Partly DOT

30 High Intersection of Mendenhall Loop Rd and Mendenhall Mall Rd needs improvements for non‐motorized modes


No No No DOT/Priv.

31 High Intersection of Egan Dr and Mendenhall Loop Rd needs improvements for non‐motorized modes


No No Yes DOT

32 High Crosswalk needed on Glacier Highway between Riverside Dr and the Brotherhood Bridge


Yes No No DOT/CBJ

33 High Intersection improvements needed at Mendenhall Loop Rd and Taku Blvd for non‐motorized modes

Intersection and Crossing

Yes No No DOT/CBJ

34 High Intersection improvements needed Mendenhall Loop Rd and Mendenhall Blvd for non‐motorized modes

Intersection and Crossing

Yes No No DOT/CBJ

35 High Crosswalks needed to bus stop near Fred Meyer Intersection and Crossing

No No No DOT

36 High Separated Under Thunder path needs to be completed Separated Path

Yes No Yes NA

37 Mid Pedestrian improvements needed along school routes from Long Run Dr to Tournure St

Sidewalk Improvements

No No No CBJ

38

Mid Bike lane needed on Old Dairy Rd from end to Glacier Highway Bike Lane No No Yes DOT


Rec. No


2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

39 Mid Intersection improvements needed on Mendenhall Loop Rd at Floyd Dryden School Intersection and Crossing Yes

Partly No COT/CBJ

40 Mid Bike lane needed on Glacier Highway between separated path along Egan Dr and Fred Meyer

Bike Lane No

Partly Yes DOT

41 Mid Separated path needs to be completed from Vintage area to Dimond Park pedestrian Bridge

Separated Path No

No Yes NA

42 Low Second pedestrian bridge across Mendenhall River in upper valley Intersection and Crossings No

No No NA

43 Low Intersection at Mendenhall Loop Rd and Mendenhall River School needs improvements

Intersection and Crossings No

Partly No DOT


Recommendations – Lemon Creek Rec. No


2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

45 High Sidewalks needed on Glacier Hwy between Sunny Point and Vanderbilt Hill Rd Sidewalk Improvements

Yes Yes No DOT

46 High Sidewalks needed on Anka St Sidewalk Improvements

Yes Yes No CBJ

47 High Crosswalk needed at Glacier Hwy and Concrete Way Intersection and Crossings

Partly Partly No DOT

48 High Intersection of Glacier Hwy and Anka St needs improvements for cyclists Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT/CBJ

49 High Crosswalk needed at Glacier Hwy and Walmart Intersection and Crossings

Yes Yes No DOT

50 High Separated path needed from Sunny Point to Vanderbilt Hill Rd Separated Path

Yes Yes No DOT

51 Mid Sidewalks are needed on Central Ave Sidewalk Improvements

Yes Yes No CBJ

52 Mid Intersection of Glacier Hwy and Vanderbilt Hill Rd needs improvements for non‐motorized modes


No Partly No DOT

53 Mid Glacier Hwy near Western Auto needs wider bikes lanes on both sides Bike Lane No No Yes DOT

54 Mid Intersection of Glacier Hwy and Hospital Dr needs improvement Intersection and Crossings

Partly Partly Yes DOT/CBJ

55 Mid Separated coastal path needed from Yandukin Dr to Twin Lakes Path Separated Path

Partly Partly Yes DOT

56 Mid Separated path along Vanderbilt Hill Rd from Glacier Hwy to meet new coastal path Separated Path

No No No DOT

57 Mid Separated path needed along Glacier Hwy from end of Twin Lakes path to Vanderbilt Hill Rd

Separated Path

No No Yes NA

58 Low Bike lanes needed on Channel Vista Dr Bike Lane Partly Partly Yes DOT

59 Low Sidewalk needed on one side of Sunny Dr Sidewalks Improvements

No No No DOT


Recommendations – Downtown and Thane Rec. No


2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

60 High Bike lanes are needed on South Franklin St Bike Lane No No No DOT 61 High Seawalk should be completed from Harris Harbor to Rock Dump Separated Path Yes Yes Yes CBJ 62 High Bike lanes are needed on Egan Dr from Juneau‐Douglas Bridge to Main St Bike Lane Yes Yes Yes DOT 63 High Bike lanes are needed on Glacier Ave from Highland Ave to Egan Dr Paved Shoulder No No Yes CBJ

64 High Pedestrian improvements are need on Glacier Ave from Highland Ave to 10th St Sidewalk Improvements

No No No CBJ

65 High Bike lanes needed on Willoughby Ave from Glacier Ave to Egan Dr Bike Lane Yes Yes Yes DOT 66 High Shoulder lanes are needed on Thane Rd from downtown to the end Paved Shoulder Yes No Yes DOT 67 High Bike lanes needed on 10th St between Egan Dr and Glacier Ave Bike Lane No No Yes CBJ

68 High Intersection improvements needed at Egan Dr and Glacier Ave for non‐motorized modes


No No No DOT/CBJ

69 High Intersection improvements are needed at Egan Dr and Whittier St for non‐motorized modes


Underway Underway No DOT/CBJ

70 High Intersection improvements are needed at Egan Dr and 12th St for non‐motorized modes


No No No DOT/CBJ

71 High Intersection improvements are needed at Egan Dr and West 8th St for non‐motorized modes


Partly No No DOT/CBJ

72 High Intersection improvements are needed at Egan Dr and 10th St Intersection and Crossings

Yes Yes Yes DOT/CBJ

73 High Intersection improvements needed at Willoughby Ave and Capital Ave for non‐motorized modes


Partly No No CBJ

74 High Intersection improvements needed at Egan Dr and Main St for non‐motorized modes Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT/CBJ

75 High Intersection improvements needed at Egan Dr and Willoughby Ave for non‐motorized modes


Partly No Yes DOT/CBJ

76 High Pedestrian improvements are needed on Egan Dr between the bridge and Main St Sidewalk Improvement

Yes No No DOT

77 High Separated path needed along Thane Rd from end of Seawalk to Sheep Creek Separated Path No Yes Yes NA

78 Mid Improvements for pedestrians needed on Calhoun Ave Sidewalk Improvements

No No No CBJ

79 Mid Sidewalks needed on Capital Ave between Willoughby Ave and 9th St Sidewalk Improvements

No No No CBJ

80 Mid Intersection at 12th St and Irwin St needs improvements for pedestrians Intersection and Crossings

No No No CBJ

81 Low Separated path needed along Gold Creek from Egan Dr to Cope Park Separated Path No No Yes NA


Recommendations – Douglas Island Rec. No


2008 Comp. Plan

1997 NMPT Plan

Ownership of Road

82 High North Douglas Hwy north of the bridge needs pedestrian improvements Sidewalk Improvements

No No No DOT

83 High Separated paths on Juneau‐Douglas Bridge are sometimes too narrow for bikes and walkers


No No No DOT

84 High Douglas Hwy bike lane needs to be completed from Gastineau Schoool to Savikko Rd Bike Lanes No No Yes DOT

85 High Douglas Hwy between Cordova St and Downtown Douglas needs completed sidewalk

Sidewalk Improvements

No Yes No DOT

86 High Crosswalk needed at Crow Hill Dr and the Douglas Hwy Intersection and Crossings


87 High 3rd St at library needs a crosswalk Intersection and Crossings


88 High Douglas Hwy and Cordova St needs improved crosswalk Intersection and Crossings

Yes No No DOT/CBJ

89 High 3rd St and Savikko Rd needs intersection improvements Intersection and Crossings

No No DOT/CBJ

90 High Treadwell Ditch with neighborhood connections Separated Path No No No NA

91 Mid Roundabout needs lane improvements for bicycles Intersection and Crossings

No No No DOT

92 Mid Pedestrian improvements along Savikko Rd Sidewalk Improvements

Yes No Partly CBJ

93 Mid Douglas Hwy and David St needs a crosswalk Intersection and Crossings


94 Mid Shoulder lanes on North Douglas Hwy needed from Boat launch to end of the road Paved Shoulder Yes Partly Yes DOT

Public Hearing/ Final Draft May 28 2009 version 96

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE –– CCOOMMPPLLEETTEE SSTTRREEEETTSS CCOODDEE EEXXAAMMPPLLEE

juneau non motorized transportation plan · based on public input; on discussions with city and...

Documents